Supreme Court of India
RAM CHANDER AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 1983 INSC 68
- Decided
- 12 May 1983
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- V D TULZAPURKAR
Holding
An appellate court cannot set aside an acquittal unless it individually addresses and disproves each ground on which the trial court based its acquittal.
Summary
The accused police officers were tried for murder, assault and creating false evidence after Balwant Singh died while in police custody. The Sessions Judge acquitted them, finding the prosecution’s case implausible and the evidence unreliable. On appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal, relying chiefly on the presence of injuries on the soles and buttocks of the deceased as proof of police‑inflicted third‑degree torture, and on an alleged deliberate minimisation of injuries in the inquest report. The Supreme Court held that a higher court cannot overturn an acquittal without expressly addressing each reason for the trial court’s decision, and that the injury evidence and alleged omissions were insufficient to overturn the acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s conviction and restored the original acquittal, cancelling the bail bonds of the accused.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court may reverse an acquittal without specifically refuting the trial court’s reasons for acquittal.
- Whether the nature and location of injuries on the deceased’s body can be conclusively attributed to police‑inflicted third‑degree torture.
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the accused in the murder and related offences.
- Whether the omission of the exact number of injuries in the inquest report indicates a deliberate attempt to conceal evidence.
- Whether the State discharged its burden of proof on appeal.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 218, s. 302, s. 323, s. 34, s. 342
Subjects
appeal against acquittalburden of proofevidence evaluationinjury analysispolice custodythird degree methodsfalse evidencecriminal procedure
Judgment
257
RAM CHANDER AND ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
Mdy 12, 1983
~J B
'
[V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND V. BALAKRISHN'A ERADI, JJ.]
Crlminal Procedure-Appeal against acquittal- While reversing acquittal
High Court !Ja:. to deal vo!ith each one of the reasons which prompted trial court to
rl!c'Ofd acquittal. ,
The appellants were tried along with one other person for offences under
c
ss. 302 and 323 read with s. 34, I.P.C., as also under ss. 218 and 342, J.P.C_.,
on allegations that they had taken one Balwant Singh into custody, tortured
him to death and thereafter created false evidence with a view to e'scape from
legal punishment in connection with tl)e murder of Balwant Singh. The Sessions
Judge acquitted all the accused after coming to the conclusion that the prose-
cution story was highly improbable. He dealt with the· prosecution evidence · D
elaborately and gave substantial reasons for rejecting the same. ·
In the appeal preferred by the State, the High Court reversed the acquittal
and convicted and sentenced the appellants without dealing with or discussing
the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for acquitting them. The High Court
was principally influenced by the nature of injuries that had been noticed on E
the dead body at the time of autopsy. Based on th~ injuries found on the soles
and buttocks of the deceased the High Court came to the conclusion that the
deceased had. been given a sound beating while he was in police custody. The
High Court mentioned that its conclusion had been strengthened by the fact
that appeUant No, 2 had, while preparing· the inquest report, made a deliberate
effort to minimise the number of injuries sustained by the deceased inasmuch
as in column No. 10 thf'reof, injuries on five different parts of the body had F
been mentioned without giving the actual number of injuries in those parts,
while according to the doctor's post mortem report there w¢re 33 external
injuries.
Allowing the appea),
G
HELD : The duty of the High Court while dealing with the appeal
against acquittal was quite clear. It should have dealt with each one of the
reasons which prompted the trial court to record the acquittal and should have
pointed out how, if at all, those r.easons were wrong or incorrect. Without
undertaking such exercise the High Court could not reverse the acquittal.
. . • {267 A-B) B
The High Court was clearly in error in solely [relying upon the nature of
some:or the injuries for drawing the conclusion that the c;J~ceasec;J ptust havo
.,..
J •
I , '
~5.8
I · ., .
. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S H983) 3 S.C.R•
I . . ·-...
:.1
been .nssnultcd by the appellant in c~1 ~ tody. ~n ~oing so, the H igh Court
I
(:
indulged in coojcctures and surmises:; . There . were only two injuries which
' ..
f:. could ' properly be regarded as injuries on. the soles of the two feet of the ·
r~. deceased whicH may be indicative of the police using third degree methods but
t~.:·! :
the injuries on the buttocks could not be indicative of user of third degree .
methods. Apart from injurieS on' the soles and th.e · buttocks, there were other: ·
injuries on ·several other parts of the body which could not be regarded as being
.
'I '
B
necessarily consi~tent with the assault on the deceased only in police custody. .·~
·I . The criticism made against appellant No: 2 that he made deliberate attempt
.1 to minimise the injuries sustained by the deceased while writing column No. 10
.. ~
of the inquest report also cannot be a'cccptcd. · Jt is' quite possible that he may
not llave noticed all the injuries or, even afl~r · noticing them, he may not bave
i .. mentioned in detail all tne injuries tfia~ WCJ C lJrCSCJ;lt on 'the dead body at the
' time of the inquest. · In any event it cnnnot be forgotten that he has broadly
indicated five parts of the body on which it has bc:cn stated severn I mjuries
G
... were noticed. His only fault is thot the actual number of injuries were not
mentioned but from this nlone it will be ·difficult to impute the motive that he
bad deliberately done so with a view to minimise the number of injuries
iustained by the deceased, [2.66 B-HJ . •
·· CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION ·: Criminal Appeal No. 584
r.:. D
.J . of 1976. ·.. · · · · · · . · ·· '.' ' .· ·· · ·
'
I . ·j
I
l·
( ' . Appen1 From the Judgment nud Order dated the . 22nd - \
November, 1976 of the Punjab & Haryana High. Court in Criminal
t~
Appeal No. 501 of 1973.
~; E
_.
·I ·
Prem 'Malhotra
. for the Appellants.
.
: f
R.N. Poe/dar for the Respondent. .. : · .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
F ' . . . ' . ' .. '
·t J. The · thr~c . appellants · afongwith one Ram
TuLZAPURKAR,
! Kishan (since acquitted) were
. tried
. .
foe offences under ss. 302 and
323 read with s. 34 I.P.C. as also under ss. 218 and 342 I.P.C.· before
..
·: f
; I
the learned Sessions Judge, Karnnl in Sessions Cnse No. 3 of 1973
· but the learned Sessions Judge on an appreciation of the evidence Jed
,j
.1'
QY the prosecution as well as by the defence acquitted them of all
I
the charges on the ground that the prosecutjon had f.'l ilcd to prove
.. .;
the offences charged. Tho State of lfaryana pref"crred an appeal being
..
• I
Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 19?3 to the High Court challenging the
i said acquittul and the High Coi1rt by its judgment and order dated
H 22nd Nov~mber, 1976 allowed the State appeal so far as the ~l~n.'e
•
'/ appe1Iant5 before us are conc,erncd, but confirmed the acquittal or
.If ~a!ll Khhan. The Hi~h Court convicted the appellants under s. 302
' ' • • ~ . ' ~. . • . . ' , w
·l
. . ·. RAM CHANDER V. J{ARYANA (Tu/zqpurkar. J.) 259
read .with s. 34 I.P.C..and sentenced each of them to St,Iffer unprison... ·
ment . for life and further convicted . ~the .fir$-t two . appellants
-(Ram_Chander and Ch_and-Ram) under$. 218 .I.P,C. and -~sentenced -.
.them to. suffer rigorous . imprisonment .. for ! two . years . each; . . the
·substantive sentences were . direct~d to ·run .concurrently. .. In _o ther ·
-~
as
·w ordst so far. the three.app~llants are concerned, ~hejr acquittal has
~ ·. been"reversed and the' question in: . this appeal.. is
wh~tll~r . t~e slligh
in
Court is ·r ight that behalf•... · · ·. · · · · · ·
.. ' .
./ .
. The prosecution case against · th~ three ~ppellants ~and Ram
._ iJGshan may briefly be ·stated :.as follows • ..~ Ram 1Chander. (appellant ·-
·No;l) had been posted as a Station 'House Officer, : Police .· Station, . -~ .
· Sadar Panipat a few ·days. before ·. the ·.occurrence~· while -appellants '
Nos.'2 and 3 ·(Chand Ram .and .BaJjeet ··Singh) ' and ;Ram Kisbaii -·-.
· :·were .:working as ~ Assistant · Sub ·Inspector, · Head Constable· ;and · ·
· Constable respectively under·him at··that -.Police Station . . ·A ccording
·.to the prosecution _on.the eyening . of · September: 6, · 1972, _a ppellant
· No.:·l summoned some -·persons . suspected .of ·:havi(lg ._committe,d .a . ' '
·theft to ·,' the · Police ··_Station; :.Banta ~ (P.W.7) -.on · being_-: summone~ ·
. · .. · through appellant No. 3 · had reached :--the Police ..Station .at ,about
__,--..._ ~15 p.m~ while Vir · Singh .{P.W.6) .and one . .-.Sukha ..:Sin_gh--·:Wel'e
··personally brought :by appellant No. 1 to the Police Station ;at . about
· ·7 p.m.; at about ·IO p.m. appellants Nos. 2 ·and 3 and -Ram ~Kisban . · .. <'..:E .
. went to the house of B~lwant Singh, . the .·deceased, . and . prt)cJaimed
. that Balwant Singh was wanted by the appellant No. ~1 at the Police
: Station where'upon Joginder . Singh . (P.W.4) . -~is , :brother •.and .-other
members of his family requested that Balwant -.Singh .should not, be
· taken to the police station at that~odd hour and that they .tbemsei~es ·
would produce .him _before the S.H..O. on :t he foJl~wing ,mor~ing _-qpt . ;:.
·...F . .......
.
· · · . their-request went unheeded and reluctantly Balwant Singh 1and :;his
. -·s ervant Harnam Singh (PW5) went with· tbe -polic~ ·party in ·-a :tempo
{
~driven by Som Nath (P.W~l4) to ··t he ·.police station·_..while !Joglnder .
·'Singh' (PW4)• .tAmarjeet•Singh(P..W.l2) another ~brother :.of •:Balwant
_·. Si~gh· and two others- followe,d th~ police ~arty . on their.· bi·cycles; .on·
·"the way the police party told them (the ,.witnesses) .'.to ' go ' .back, ; but
~Joginder;Singh and his comp~nions 'did not. listen :iand , followed, :the
·police party righ! up tothe'·Police Station.· . Joginde~ :_ Singh . (P.W.4)
·approached appellant-No. 1' and enquired from him about the matter
: for which -the·: deeeased · Balwant :Singh ·had ·been summoned .i but · ~:.H ..
~-~ ·. appellantNo. 1 told him to go backan~ .to makejnquiries ·.about-the..; . . 1
matter on the -following morning. . According : to.!the .-prosecution
further.- within their sisht Bah~ant Singb_deceased and Hamam Singh
.·-
260 . SUP.REME COURT 'REPORTS [19~3) 3 s.c.R.
·{P.W.S} wer~ taken i~ a room of the police ·_station· where. Moharrir
A Head Con-stable '(Balwant Singh PW 15) used to sit.· and while
. Joginder Singh (P.W. ·4) and his companions wer.e stimding just O'utside
- the police 'station they beard the cries of Balwant· Singh.·deceased who
. . . that
. was' saying '
he was
'
innocent
.. . and should
" " -.
not
be .,beaten. In ·short'
. .
accordmg to. tbe prosecution, Balwant Singh wa~ tortured to death by
·-B· the th.ree appellants arid Ram Kishan_ wh!le he was_iri police. cUstody
onthe night between 6th ~nd 7th September;-1972~ ·.. ·. · . ,
· ':, In the morning at about-6.30 (on ~eptember 7, 1972) Vir Singh
:{PW6)wh·o came out of the police station told Joginder Singh· (PW4)
•. I
·c .and·· his· companions;_ who· were stiU waiting. outside ~the:- poli~e
.1'1' ~
station, that the three apreliants and Ram· Kishan had contiuonsly
- • • ; • -
, · .• beaten Balwant Singh inside the police station for the whole night and ·
··:that he was not sure whether Balwant· Singh was alive or 'notcand
__- . 'that the appeiJants were conspiring to some how or other dispose_ or·
, the dead body.. ·At the instance of Joginder' Singh (PW4), Amarjit
D · · .Singh (P.W.t2) went to the Sub Division~} Magistrate's Court, Panipat ·
. · :and got an appl_icatiori (F:X. PM) drafted· and presented it to the Sub
_Divisional Magistrate, who marked it to the Station House· Officer,
, Sadar · Panipat- :(appellant No. 1). for ·~eport. Smt.' Harnam Kaur ~
(P.W.t3) mother ofBalwant Singh deceased, after waiting in vain
E . · '.for; her ·sons to.come' back ti11 11 a.tri_.- hereself. went to .
the ·police·
: ; station•Panipat and ·met Joginder Sin£h (P\V4)._and others outside the
police station arid after bearing about the beating ofBalwant Singh·
in the custody of the police station~ at the instance of Joginder Singh
(PW4), she sent a telegram (E.x. PL) Jo the Superintendent ·of.· Police
Karnal to the effecf that Station Home Officer, Sadar Panipat .and
-,
F five constables and ,.Havildar Baljeet Singh-raided her house on the
... . previous night and took her son Batwant Singh and servanf. Hamam -·:
-- ·- Singh {PWS) to the·- police station·: that Balwant Singh. had, been,.
. . , beaten ruthlessly and taken to an unknown·placeand that his Jife was
- . ~:,in danger and she prayed for an ear iy action· to :save··: the.. preciou~
.G ·. · life of Balwant Singh. At abo-ut 7 or 7.30 p.m.· on. S~ptember-: 7,
. : ·1972, Joginder Singh (PW4) conta~telDy. S.P~ Iqbal- Singh (P\V16)
and narrated to him all that had happened and Iqbal Singh, assured
,~- hin1 .. that justice ·would be done· in . tlie ·case~ . By this time it :· had
:become-that Balwant Singh had succinnb~d ·to the injuries received
·H . by him arid therefore; Joginder Singhrequeste.d the Dy. S.P. to have -·
.• ': the autopsy on the dead body d~ne by Chief Medical Officer: l(aroal.) / /
1llste~d. of b¥ the Iocal'fvfedical Officer~
•• > • , .. •
. \·
'.... . . - ;.
r • ···-:. '. .·'
..
Meanwhile, as per the direction of the' f Sub Divisional
Magistrate, endorsed on Ex. PM (Amarjit Singh's application~, A
appellant No. 1 submitted his report (Ex. DE) on September 9, 1972,
stating his version as to what had transpired, which substantially
became the defence version at the trial. In his report it was stated
that on September 7, 1972 at about 5.30 a.m. Bhim Singh (D.W.2)
reported that at night two thieves entered his · residential Kotha for
committing theft which he noticed ·on returning from the field and on
8
·finding the thieves there he raised an alarm "thief, thief". Both the
thieves opened an attack on him with lathis which they were carrying
but many persons of the village also gathered there carrying lathis;
that one of the thieves who was a Sik~ succeeded in running away
while the other was knocked down by the people who .gave him c
many lathi blows. ·Later on he was found to be Balwant Singh;
consequently a case under s. 458 IPC had been registered at the
.....
...: police station Sadar Panipat on the information given by Bhim Singh
(DW2) and that during this operation currency notes worth
Rs. 2260/- alongwith· one gold ring belonging to Bhim Singh had
been stolen; the investigation was still in hand and the search for the
D
second accused was being made. Appel~ant No. 1 denied that
.Bal~ant Singh deceased and Harnam S!ngh {PWS) had been asked
to attend the police station. The appellants also pleaded ·that they
were falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and others
who were not merely related to and interested in the deceased but E
were inimical to them, being peop,le of shady character and were
aggrieved by the appellant No. 1' s strict surveillance over their
illegal activities. AppeHant No. 1 and Ram Kishan also raised
pleas of alibi suggesting that on the night in question they were not
at police station Sadar Panipat but were away on duty elsewhere and
examined defence witnesses to support the~r case. F
It may be stated_that as desired by the_deceased's ..relatives~. the
autopsy on the dead body of Balwant Singh was performed by
Dr. P.N. Kapila (P.W.l), Chief Medical Officer, Karnal on
September 8, 1972, who noticed as many as 33 external injuries and ·G
four internal injuries and opined that the cause of death was shock
as a result of multiple injuries which were all ante-mortem and were
sufficient in the ordinary. course of nature to cause death collectively.
It was not disputed that Balwant Singh's death was homicidal and
those responsible for .assault on him would be guilty of murder. Main B
question was whether the prosecution discharged the onus of proving
convincingly that the, appellants were involved in such assault 'l
11:. • '
262 · (1983] 3 s.c.k.
In view of the afore-mentioned rjval versions put forward by the
· prosecution and the defence; three main questions arose for deter-
, iltination :-(a) whether ·deceased ·Balwailt ·Singh was taken to the
Police· Station Sadar·Panipat by tbe appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and
·Ram Kishan in the tempo driven by Som Nath · (P.W.14) on the
night"between·6th and 7th .. September, 1972? (b) what transpired at
the 'Police 3tation, that is to say, whether deceased Balwant Singh
--was given a beating by the three appellants and Ram Kishan while·he
was allegedly in their ctstody? and (c) whether the appellants "patti-·
cularly appellant No. 1 ~reated false evjdence by preparing documents ·
in conn·ection· with the theft said· to :have been committed in the
·house of Bhim Singh (DW2) with a view to escape from ·legal
:.c punishment in connection·with the murder of Balwant Singh? On.
·the first two points the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence
of Som Nath (P. W~ 14), the.'driver of the tempo, Vir Singh (F•W6),
Banta Singh (PW7), Harnam Singh (PW5), Joginder Singh (PW4)
and Amarjeet'Singh {PW12), out of whom·Banta Singh and Harnam
Singh·were said to be 'stamped witnesses' as· they had injuries on
their. ·persons allegedly suffered by them at the time of causing
injuries to deceased Balwant Singh. On analysing the entire material
. on record the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the
prosec~tion story was highly improbable and that the evidence of the
aforesaid witnesses was· not reliable. The pleas of a1ibi ·were accepted
and -the defence version'of theft at the ·house of DW ·Bhim Singh
involving deceased Balwant Singh was·held to be true. Leaving aside
,--,
__
the defence case, ·it .must be observed that ·he dealt .. with :.the
prosecution eveidence quite elaborately and gave substantial reasons
-for rejecting the same. w
,1F
As regards Som Nath (P.W. 14), aged about IS. years, who is
alleged to ·have brought Harnam Singh and Balwant Singh in his
tempo to the Police Station in the company of-the police officials, the
learned Judge found ·.that though the witness asserted that ·he-was
· driving the tempo for the last about 5 years, he wa~ nodn poss(~ssion
of any licence till the-date of his evidence, that it was surprising.how
he could remember the date 6th of September, 1972 as the date on
·which: he brought Balwant Singh in his tempo to the·police ·station
when he could not remember other dates of other occasions· when
his tempo had been requisitioned by the police and ·who were,the
. police officials ·WhO had travelled in his tempo on thoSe occasions
and that'·his statement had been recorded by the ·police ·as·late as-bn
17th September, 1972 though be was ·shown_ to ·have remained in
. RAM CHANDER v._ HARYANA (Tu/rapurkar, J.) t263
Panipat throughout. For these reasons the learned Judge .was not
prepared to accept Som Nath's evidence -and if that .be .so the very A
:basis of the prosecution story that deceased .Balwant SiJ:~gh was taken
to the police station on the night ·in questio~, was k~pt in custody
there and was assaulted by the appellants, would fall to the.ground..
As regards the other prosecution witnesses mentioned above, .the
learned Judge referred to the admitted position that each one of
them had past antecedents and history of shady character to .his
.B
. credit and being inimical towards the police attachea to Panipat
Police Station had shown anxiety to involve the Police Officials in
the case. With this background he examined their evidence with
• _great care and caution and came to th~ conclusion that none of
them was worth relying upon and their evidence hopelessly fell short c
of connecting any of the appellants with the offences charged. The
learned Judge further pointed out that in Ex. PM -dt. 7th September,
1972, the earliest application made by Amarjeet Singh (P.W. 12) to
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the names of appellant No. I (Ram
Chander) and Ram Kishan had not been mentioned at all and this
fact assumed importance especially when it was· immediately after D
getting information abont the assault on .Balwant Singh from Vir
Singh (PW 6) in the morning at 6.30 a.m. Amarjit Singh made that
application as directed by Joginder Singh (PW 4). The learned
Judge further pointed -out that in the telegram Ex. PL sent by
Harnam Kaur {PW 13), to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, it E
was stated.that S.H.O _Sadar Panipat alongwith five constables and
Hawaldar Baljeet Singh had taken away her son Balwant Singh and
.servant Harnam Singh to the police station whereas it was never the
case of the prosecution that S.H.O. Ram Chander (app~llant No.· I)
was among those police officials who had gone to the ·nera of Balwant
--- Singh. In view of these facts and the other material on record the
learned Judge came to the conclusion that Ex. ·PG, the regular First
F
Information Report lodged by Jqginder Singh as late as on 9th
Sept,ember, 1972 had been got drafted after holding deliberations
and consultations in which detailed allegations were made against
the appellants mentioning even the sections of the Penal Code. One G
more crucial circumstance was referred to by the learned Sessions
-\:" Judge and that was that Joginder Singh (PW 4), Amarjeet Singh
(PW 12) had claimed that theY. had not allowed the dead body of
Balwant Singh to be. taken away from the police statio-n· and that it
·- --t- was brought out in the OJ.orning in the immediate presence of H
hundreds of persons and if that were so there should have been no
dearth of independent persons~ who could have been examined fo.r
264
.. substantiating the prosecution case that at some stage of the other
A the dead body of Balwant Singh was at the police station but nothing
of the kind was done. What is more, Amarjit Singh (P.W. 12) had
stated befOre the Dy. S.P. Iqbal Singh (PW 16),. with which._portion ·
he was confronted, that he had seen the dead body of Balwant Singh
for the first time at the morgue. The learned Ses&ions Judge, there-
fore, concluded that there was no satisfactory proof that the dead
body of Balwant Singh had ever remained in the police station of
Sadar Panipat either during the night intervening betw~cn 6th and
7th September, 1972 or any time subsequently and prior to i.ts post
mortem. As regards the two injured witnesses Banta Singh. and
Harnam Singh, the learned Sessions Judge pointed out that neither .
c in Ex. PM dt. 7th September. 1972 the fact that Banta Singh too· had
received injuries while at poJice station was mentioned and further,
since Dr. R. S. Naiyar, who had examined Banta Singh's injuries
had stated that Banta Singh could have received those injuries within
·3 to 7 days of his examination, which was done on 13th September,
D 1972, it could not be pin-pointed with certainty tha't he had rcc·~ived
tJfose injuries during the night of the occurrence. As regards injuries
on Harnam Singh, the learned Judge observed that the possibility
of Harnam Singh being the other thief alongwith Balwant Singh
durjng the theft that occurred on the night in question at the house
of Bhim Singh (D.W. 2) and he being. the thi~f who had escapc!d on
E that occasion with minor injuries at the hands of the vilJagers could
not be ruled out. It was for this state of evidence and fo:r the
reasons indicated above that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted
the appellants of the charge of murder. Consequently, the other
charge under s. 218 also failed.
F ~·-
When the matter was taken in appeal by the State, we are
surprised to find that the High Court reversed the acquittal without
deali~g with or discussing any of the aforesaid reasons given :by the
learned Sessions Judge for· acquitting the appellants. The· High
Court, it appears, was principally influenced by the nature of injuries
G that were noticed by the doctor on the dead body of Balwant Singh
at the time of autopsy and in its view some of the ilijuries which
• were on the soles and buttocks of the deceased convinced it that the
deceased was given a sound beating while he was in police custody.
This is what the High Court has observed in that behalf:
H
"Injuries Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30 and 31 were on
the soles and the buttocks of the deceased. Such injuries
·RAM CHANDER v. HARY,A.NA (futzapurkar, i.) 26)
are sustained by a person when he is subjected to third
degree methods by the police. The reason. is obvious. A
Injuries inflicted on the soles, unless given continuously
for a longer period, do not feave · behind tell-tale marks.
This consideration apart~ we have to see .in the light of
the two versions before us the probability of the circums-
tances under which the injuries were sustained by the
B
deceased; assuming while not admitting, that the deceased
did go to commit a burglary at the house of Bhim Singh,
D.W. 2, and he was knocked down by his co-villagers,
it would be wholly improbable on the ·parf of such
villagers to aim their blows at the soles of a fallen thief.
They would much rather break the shin bones of the thief c
instead of particularly aiming their blows at that part of
the body where injuries do not leave any mark. When
we asked the learned counsel for the respondep.ts to
explain these injuries~ the only explanation w.hich he
could put forth was th(lt the deceased could have sus:..
tained them by jumping on to the ground. We are
D
unable to accept this explanation because nature has
endowed the human sole with more elacticity than which
is
he required for jumping about. If a person falls from
a height, it is more probably for him to sustain fractures
of his ankles and shi~ bo~es instead of getting redness E
• on the soles. Furthermore, the presence of the contusions
on both the ~oles unmistakably points out to the infliction
of injuries thereupon with the help of a small rule which
the police men usually carry. We are accordingly con,..
vinced that the decease~ was given these injuries while
he was in custody. In fact the deceased was brutally F
basted, his tongue-was caught in between the teeth, there
was bleeding from the right -nostril, mouth and left ear.
There was seminal discharge from the urethera on the
posterior surface of the trunk and back of neck. Human
beings poss~ssed with the spirit of the devil alone could G
have caused such injuries."
The High Court has further gone on to observe that its conclusion
·mentioned in the above quoted portion was strengthened by the fact
that when Chand Ram (appellant No. 2) prepared the inquest report
H
he made a deJiberate effort to minimise the number of injuries
sustained by the deceased. for, in column No.. 10 of the inquest
•
·[i98~l 3s..c.k.
report injuries on 5 different ·parts of ihe ·body were mentioned
A without giving the actual number of injurjes in those parts, whi_Je
according to doctor's post JllOrtem report ·there ·were. 33 ·external
injuries.
In our view the · High Court was clearly in ·error in solely
relying upon the nature of some· of the injuries that were found on
B
the dead body of Balwant Singh for drawing the conclusion that the
deceased must have been assualted by the appellant in custody.· In
doing so, the High Court has ·unfortunately ·indulged in conjectures
and surmises. In the first place there were only two injuries, namely,
injury No. 22 and'23 which could properly be regarded as injuries
on the soles of the two feet of the deceased, ·which may be indicative
of the police using third degree methods· but the injuries on the
buttocks could not be indicative of user of third degree method:;, for;
once a thief is caught by villagers for the purpose of giving a sound
beating he may as well fail flat on the ground ·and the villagers could
give beating on his-buttocks. Moreover, apart froni these injuries
D on the so1es and the buttocks there were other injuries on several
other parts ofthe body, such as fore-head, shoulders, neck, arms,
legs, kn~esJ scalp, etc~ 'The impact of these injuries cannot be
· ignored an:d these injuries·could·nQt b!' regarded as being nece:;sarily
consistent with the assault on the deceased onlY in police custody.
E It is thus not possible to agree with the High Court's view which has
been expressed thus: "Furthermore, the presence of the contusions
of
on both the soles unmistakably ·points out t~ the infliction injuries
thereupon with the help of a small rule which the policemen usually
carry. We are accordingly convinced that the deceased was given
these injuries while he was in custody.', ·
F
·;The criticism made against appellant No. 2 that· he made a
deliberate attempt to minimise the injuries sustained . by the deceased
while '"writing Col. No: 10 .of the inquest report also cannot be
accepted. ' It is quite possible that he .may not have noticed aU the
, injuries or -even after noticing them h~ may not have mentioned in
detail.all the injuries that were present on ,the dead body-of Balwant
Singh at the time of the inquest. In any event it cannot be forgotton
that the appellant No. 2 has broadly indicated 5 parts of the body on
which it has been stated several injuries were noticed. ·The only
H faulton the part of appellant No. 2 is that the actual number of
injuries were not mentioned but 'from this alone it will be diffi.cult to
impute the motive that he had deliberateJy done so- with a view to
minimise the number of injuries sustained by the deceased.
..
llAM CHANDER v. HARYANA (1'ulzapurkar, 1.) '26?
Apart from these aspects of the ·High, Court's reasoning, its
duty while dealing with the appeal against acquittal was quite clear. A
it should have dealt with each one of the reasons which prompted
the trial Court to. record the acquittal and should have pointed out
· how, if at all, these rea-sons were ·wrong or .incorrect. Without under-
taking such exercise the High Cout could not · reverse the acquittal.
·We therefore, allow the appeal,-set1aside the conviction recorded by
the High Court and restore the appelJan ts' acquittal in respect of the
charges ·levelled· agaitrst them, thei( bail bonds are cancelled.
H.L.C. Appeal ·allowed.
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appeal against acquittal"Sign in to search