UMRAOversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                UMRAO                                           A
                                    v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                             MAY 12, 2006

               [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]                              B
      Penal Code-Sections 149 and 302-Murder with common object-
Fight over removal of electric motor on a tube well-Some accused also
suffering injuries-Before death, deceased discharged from· hospital but
admitted again on same day, and expiring after being operated upon-
Conviction of accused by Trial Court-High Court finding that accused did        c
not have common intention and acquitting them as injuries to accused were
not explained and injury that ultimately proved fatal was caused to deceased
after discharge from hospital-Correctness of-Held-As self defence was
pleaded and there was possibility of accused version being correct, injuries
on their person had to be explained-It was established that electric motor      D
belonged to one of the accused and prosecution laid a false claim there over,
and they cannot be said to have committed any offence if they were removing .
it from the well jointly owned by parties-Accused had no common object
to cause death ofdeceased-Evidence ofdoctor was suggestive ofpossibility
that deceased suffered head injury after discharge from hospital could not
be ruled out, hence accused could not be found to be guilty of causing death    E
of deceased.

     The appellant lodged FIR alleging that when he went to the tube
well owned by his brother R, along with his son, the deceased, they
found that the accused persons were removing the electric motor                 F
therefrom. On their asking the accused persons not to do so, fight broke
out between the parties. Some of the respondents also suffered injuries.
His son was admitted in the Civil Hospital. He was discharged from the
said hospital but was again admitted in the hospital on the same day.
He was operated upon by a doctor, P.W.8. and expired subsequently.
The accused, respondents Nos. 2 to 6, were tried for alleged commission         G
of various offences, and thereupon convicted by Trial Court. For
causing the death of deceased under Section 302/149 I.P.C. they were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine, and
furthermore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four
years under Section 307/149 l.P.C. for attempt to murder R. They were           H
                                    601
    602                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   also convicted under Section 148 l.P.C. and sentenced.

         On an appeal by the respondents the High Court set aside the
    conviction of respondents under Sections 148/149, 307/149 and 302/149



                                                                                   -
    1.P.C. It was found that the injuries on the person of some of the
    respondents had not been explained. It was, therefore, concluded that
B   there must have been a free-fight between the parties in which persons
    from both the sides were injured. It was also held that the injury which
    ultimately proved fatal was caused to deceased after the discharge from
    the Civil Hospital, but before his re-admission on the same night, that
    this injury could not have been caused on the date of the occurrence.
c         Appellant contended that (i) the defence story that deceased had
    another fall from the staircase has been disbelieved by Trial Court by
    assigning cogent and sufficient reason (ii) seven injuries were found on
    the person of R and thus, there was a possibility that the said injuries
    could prove to be dangerous to life (iii) it was not necessary on the part
D   of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the respondents.

          Respondents contended that the injuries inflicted on the deceased
    as also upon the appellant and R in exercise of their right of self-defence.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Cqurt
E
          HELD : 1. It may not be necessary for the prosecution to explain
    the injuries on the person of the accused in all circumstances, but, it is
    trite that when a plea of self defence is raised and the court opines that
    the version of the accused persons may be correct, the explanation of
F   injuries on the person of the accused cannot be put to a back seat or
    cannot simply be ignored. (612-G-HJ

           2. The findings of the High Court to the effect that the respondents
    had not formed any common intention cannot be said to be suffering
    from any legal infirmity. The fact that both parties caused injuries to
G   the members of the other side is not in dispute. The fact that the well
    was situated on the land of the respondent, is also not in dispute. It has
    been found as of fact that the electric motor installed in the well
    belonged to one of the respondents. The prosecution laid a false claim.
    It is in this situation, the respondents cannot be said to have committed
H   any offence if they had been removing the motor, which was installed
                                 UMRAOv. STATE                               603

     by them, from the well, which is said to be jointly owned by the parties.       A
     If, on the other hand, defence version is to be accepted, the appellant
     and the other witnesses. having no right over the said motor, could not
     have removed the same from the well. In any view of the matter, the
     dispute was in regard to removing of the motor from the well. The High
·-   Court, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at
     the finding that the respondents had no common object either to cause           B
     death of the deceased or to attempt to cause murder of R. If two views
     are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment
     of acquittal passed by the court below. Upon examination of the
     materials on record and in particular, evidence of P.W. 8, the view taken
     by the High Court is a possible view. [613-E-H, 614-A)                          c
          3. P.W. 8, doctor in his evidence, stated that the possibility of
     deceased having received head injury after the discharge at 8 A.M. on
     25.9.1992 and before his re-admission on the same day at 9 P.M. in the
     Civil Hospital, cannot be ruled out. On his re-examination by the
     prosecution P.W. 8 categorically stated that as there was a head injury,        D
     he did not go into the detail. The evidence of P.W. 8 whereupon Trial
     Judge, inter alia, relied upon is suggestive of the fact that the possibility
     of the said deceased suffering a head injury after he was discharged
     from the hospital could not be ruled out. It is not in dispute that X-ray
     of the head of the deceased was taken when he was admitted in the
     hospital on 17.9.1992 but no such injury was detected. The subsequent           E
     explanation offered by the prosecution that a small fracture might not
     have been noticed in the X-ray machine, is a matter of surmise and
     conjecture. P.W. 8, who. had operated upon the deceased, categorically
     stated that the fracture was significant. Even according to the doctor
     such a fracture might have been suffered by the deceased after he was           F
     discharged from the hospital. (612-H, 613-A-C)

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                   Criminal Appeal No.
     1387 of 1999.

          From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4. 7.1997 of High Court of         G
     Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Crl. Side) in Crl. Appeal No. 661-DB/
     1995.

                                        WITH

          Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 1999.                                          H
    604                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma, S.S. Yadav, Govind Kaushik and Anis
    Ahmed, Advs. for the appellant in Cr!. A. No. 1387/1999 and Dr. Gajinder
    Chouhan & T.V. George, Advs. for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 1388/1999
    and for the respondents in Cr!. A. No. 1387/1999.

        Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra,
B   Advs. with him for the Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 1387 & 1388 of 1999.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.B. SINHA, J.: The appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No.1387/
C   99 is the first informant of First Information Report (FIR) No.386 lodged
    on 17.9.1992 at Namaul Police Station in Tehsil Namaul in relation to an
    occurrence which took place at about 616.30 A.M. on that day wherein the
    respondent Nos.2 to 6 in Criminal Appeal No.1387/99, respondents in
    Criminal Appeal No. 1388/99, along with one Ram Dayal, were arrayed as
D   accused for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections
    148, 302/149, 307/149, 325/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code
    ('J.P.C. ', for short). In the said FIR, it was alleged by the appellant herein,
    Umrao, that at the said hour, i.e., 6/6.30 A.M. he went to the tubewell owned
    by his brother Rewti, along with his son-Rajinder and his brother. They
    found that the accused persons were rs:moving the electric motor therefrom.
E   On their asking the accused persons not to do so, Yad Ram hurled a blow
    by the reverse side of "kassi", which he was carrying in his hand, on the
    head of Rajinder (since deceased). Rajinder is son of the appellant. He further
    hurled a blow with the said "kassi"on the head of the deceased, who fell
    down. The accused-respondent No.2-Babu Lal and respondent No.3-Ram
F   Swamp also hurled several blows with 'jelly" and "lathi" respectively, on
    the waist and back side of shoulders of the deceased. Respondent No.5-Golu
    Ram caused one injury on the head while respondent No.6-Ramji Lal caused
    one injury on the left elbow and another on left rib of the appellant-Umrao
    by giving several lathi blows. Yad Ram again inflicted a "kassi" blow from
G   its reverse side on the right rib of Rewti. Ram Dayal caused injuries on the
    waist and one injury each on both the hands of Rewti.

         It is not disputed that some of the respondents also suffered injuries.
    Rajinder (since deceased) was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Namaul on
H   17.9.1992. He was discharged from the said hospital on 25.9.1992 at about
                     UMRAO v. STATE [SINHA, J.]                          605

8 A.M. He was again admitted in the hospital on the same day. At about           A
9.25 P.M. on 28.9.1992 he was operated upon by Dr. Sanjeev Dua (P.W.8).
Rajinder expired on 30.9.1992.

     After the deceased was admitted to the hospital, an information was sent
to the Narnaul Police Station, whereupon the P.W.12-Anishi Lal, Head
Constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the appellant at
                                                                                 B
about 2.30 P.M. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 2.40 P.M. on the
basis of the said statements.

      The defence of the respondents as regards the death of the said Rajinder
was that after his discharge from the hospital on 25.9.1992, he fell down from   C
the staircase of his house at about 7.15 in the evening as a result whereof
he sustained head injuries leading to his death.

     The accused persons, respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein, together with said
Ram Dayal were put on trial for alleged commission of the said offences.         D
The Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, by reason of his judgment dated
30.11.1995 convicted them for commission of offences under Sections 148,
302/149, 307/149 and 325/149 of l.P.C., but, acquitted them of the charges
under Section 506/149 l.P.C. The learned Trial Judge passed the judgment
acquitting Ram Dayal having regard to his age.
                                                                                 E
       For causing the death of Rajinder, under Section 302/149 1.P.C. the
respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each. They were furthermore sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307/149
I.P.C. for attempt to murder Rewti and sentenced to undergo rigorous             F
imprisonment for two years for causing grievous hurt to the appellant herein.
They were moreover convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to
 undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In default of payment of fine,
the accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. All
the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. The learned trial     G
judge, while recording the judgment of conviction and sentence, relied upon
the evidence of the appellant herein (examined as P.W.9.) and one Har Dhian
(P.W.10) who were eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned Trial Judge
also noticed that the deceased had suffered the following ante-mortem
 injuries:
                                                                                 H
    606                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           "I.   A lacerated wound 8.3 x l ems. On the right parietal temporal
                  region. Bone deep. Edges were irregular and contused.

            2.    A lacerated wound 3 x 1 ems on the left parietal region. It bled
                  on cleaning.

B           3.    A lacerated wound 3 x I ems on the left shoulder. It was
                  muse le deep and there was an abrasion in continuation of 3
                  ems size.

            4.    A reddish contusion 5 x 1.5 ems on the left shoulder on its
C                 lateral aspect. Swelling was present.

            5.    A reddish contusion 8 x 1.5 ems on the left scapular region.
                  4 ems from injury No.4.

            6.    Multiple abrasions five in number from 1.2 x .5 ems to I x
D                 I cm. on the left side of scapular region. Oozed blood was
                  clotted.

            7.    A reddish contusion I 0 x l.5 ems on the left scapular region,
                  5 ems from injury No.5.
E
            8.    A reddish contusion 15 x 1.5 ems on the left scapular region.

            9.    A reddish contusion 20 x 1.5 ems on the left side of the chest,
                  4 ems from injury No.8.

F           I0.   A reddish contusion 14 x 1.5 ems on the right scapular region.

            11.    13 x 1.5 ems reddish contusion on the right side of loin
                  swelling was present."

         The Trial Judge further noticed that the appellant and the said Rewti
G   had suffered the following injuries on their person:

            "Injuries sustained by the appellant-Umrao :

            I.    A lacerated wound 3 x I ems on the left front parietal region.
H                 It was bone deep. Edges were irregular and contused.
                    UMRAO v. STATE [SINHA, J.]                          607

        2.   A lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 ems on the left scapular region.         A
             It was having an abrasion of 7 x .3 ems in the continuation
             of injury downwards.

        3.   A reddish contusion 5 x 3 ems on the left hand. Swelling was
             present on metacarpal region.
                                                                                B
        4.   Complained of pain on the left side of the chest with redriess
             on the lower half on chest.

        5.    A reddish contusion 2 x 2 ems on the left elbow."
                                                                                c
        "Injuries sustained by Rewti :

        I.    A reddish contusion 14 x 1 ems on the left side of chest. It
              was also present on scapular region. Swelling was present.

        2.    A reddish contusion 6 ems x 1.5 ems on the right side of          D
              scapula.

        3.    A reddish contusion 6 x 1 ems on the left side of lion regions.
              Swelling was present.
                                                                                E
        4.    A reddish contusion 8 x 2 ems on the right side of lion.
              Swelling was present.

        5.    A reddish contusion 6 x 2 ems on the lateral aspect right side
              of chest. Swelling was present X-ray was advised for ribs.
                                                                                F
        6.    Abrasion I 0 x .5 ems on the medical side of left forearm.

        7.    An abrasion 1 x 5 ems on the posterior of right middle finger."

       On an appeal being preferred from the said judgment of conviction        G
and sentence by the respondents herein, the High Court set aside the
convictiori of respondents under Sections 148/149, 307/149 and 302/149
l.P.C. The High Court, however, convicted Ramji Lal for causing grievous
and other injuries to the appellant and sentenced him to undergo one year's
rigorous imprisonment for commission of an offence punishable under             H
    608                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Section 325 l.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence
    punishable under Section 326 l.P.C. The High Court furthermore convicted
    Golu Ram for causing injuries to the appellant and sentenced him to undergo
    one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
    325 I.P.C. and two years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable
    under Section 326 l.P.C., Babu Lal and Ram Swarup were sentenced to
B   undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of the offence
    punishable under Section 326 l.P.C.

          The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of Yad Ram under
    Section 148, 325/149, 307/149 and 302/149 and sentenced him to undergo
C   rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 304 Part-ll l.P.C. for
    causing injury on the head of Rajinder and directed him to pay a fine of
    Rs.5000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
    one year and also sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment
    under Section 3261.P.C. for causing grievous injury to Rewti. It was directed
D   that out of the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/-, which was to be deposited by
    accused-Yad Ram, a sum of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to Rewti by way of
    compensation and the balance of Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the appellant herein.

           The High Court, in its judgment, opined that the claim of the appellant
    that he and Ramji Lal had dug well was not borne out from his statement
E   before the police. His statement that he had installed the electric motor in
    the well was also found to be not correct.

          As regards the defence of the respondents wa> that the said well was
    dug by them in their own land and it was Ram Dayal who installed the said
    motor and obtained an electric connection. Before the trial court. defence
F
    witnesses were also examined to show that the electric connection was
    obtained by Ram Dayal in respect of the motor in question. The defence,
    however, contended that it was in fact the complainant and other witnesses
    who were removing the electric motor from the well and when they forbade
    them from doing so, they were attacked. It was concluded that on the date
G   when the accused Babu Lal, Ram Swarup and Yad Ram came to know that
    the appellant herein and the others were removing the motor, they came to
    the place of occurrence and asked them not to do so. But, not only they did
    not pay any heed thereto, but also attacked and caused injuries to Babu T.al,
    Ram Swarup and Yad Ram, who, in exercise of their right of sdf-dcfonce,
H   caused some injuries to the prosecution party.
                      UMRAO v. STATE [SINHA, J.]                           609

     The High Court recorded:                                                      A
        " ....... From the evidence available on record, we are of the view that
        the occurrence must have been the result of a sudden quarrel
        between these two parties, and that it was not a pre-meditated
        incident, because, even in the F.I.R. itself it has been stated that
        when the complainant-party forbade the accused Babu Lal took               B
        jaily, accused Yad Ram took a kassi and the other accused took a
        lathi each and attacked them (complainant party)."

      The High Court opined that it was the complainant-party who came to
the land of Ramji Lal where the well was situated, which was a joint well          C
belonging to both the parties. The High Court was also of the view that the
appellant along with his Rewti and his son had gone to the fields for no
special purpose and thus there was no question of respondents' forming an
unlawful assembly with the object of killing Rajinder and inflicting injuries
to the complainant-Umrao and Rewti. It was held:
                                                                                   D
         " ..... This is obviously so because the accused-Ramji Lal could not
         have expected these persons to come to the place of occurrence at
         that time. It is clear from the evidence that accused Ram Dayal had
         secured an electric connection for the motor on 3.9.1992 i.e. a few
         days prior to the date of occurrence whereas, even in November            E
         1991 the service connection in the name of Rewti was disconnected.
         Therefore, it is seen that disputes had arisen between the parties with
         regard to the motor which had been installed by Ram Dayal.
         Obviously, the accused-party would not remove the motor belonging
         to Ram Dayal or even Rewti. The complainant party must have been          F
         aggrieved since Ram Dayal had installed a motor and obtained a
         separate service connection also, while they were not able to use
         the motor and because of this, there should have arisen a dispute
         leading to a sudden quarrel between both the parties without any
         pre-arranged plan, in which both the sides had sustained injuries."
                                                                                   G

      It was further found that the injuries on the person of the respondents-
Babu Lal, Ram swarup and Yad Ram .had not been explained. It, therefore,
came to the conclusion that there must have been a free-fight between the
parties in which persons from both the sides were injured.                         H
    610                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         It was concluded:

                   "These circumstances go to show that the contention of the
             prosecution that the accused had formed themselves into an unlawful
             assembly with the common object of killing Rajinder and causing
             injuries to Umrao and Rewti cannot be accepted."
B
           On the aforementioned premise the High Court took into consideration
    individual roles played by the respondents herein. It also considered the
    question as to whether death of Rajinder took place as a result of injuries
    suffered by reason of injuries inflicted by the respondents or whether the
    defence version was true.
c
          The High Court, upon analysing the materials on record came to the
    conclusion that when Rajinder was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1992,
    no fracture was found on his head. His condition was found to be normal
    throughout his treatment. No abnormality was detected in his condition, but,
    when he was re-admitted in the evening of 25.9.1992, he was stated to have
D   shown history of vomiting after taking food. He was also found to be
    vomiting at the time of his admission in the hospital. He was found to be
    in a delirious condition. After he was brought to the hospital on that day,
    an X-ray was taken and a fracture of the size of 3 cm x 0 .4 cm on his head
    was detected. The C. T. Scan examination also revealed that there was a large
E   intra cerebral haemotoma.

           The High Court noticed:

             " ..... The evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Dua (PW-8) shows that as per C.T.
             Scan report a very large intra cerebral haemotoma was found and
F            there was also large collection of blood in the brain. He specifically
             stated that it is unusual for the patient to remain conscious after
             sustaining injury like this. Therefore, if there was such an injury on
             the head of Rajinder on 17-9.1992 itself leading to the above said
             consequences, it is improbable that he could have been conscious
             throughout the period from 17-9-1992 to 25-9-1992 when he was
G            discharged finding no abnormality in him."

          As regards the explanation offered by the prosecution that such head
    injuries might not have been found in the X-ray taken and furthermore the
    death might have taken place due to delayed complication, the High Court
    opined:
H
                      UMRAO v. STATE [SINHA, J.]                           611

             "In view of our findings above that the injury, which ultimately       A
        proved fatal, was caused to Rajinder after the discharge from the
        Civil Hospital, Narnaul but before his re-admission on the same
        night, that this injury could not have been caused on the date of the
        occurrence namely, 17-9-1992, that the accused had not constituted
        an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing Rajinder
        or attacking the other injured, that a sudden quarrel had ensued
                                                                                    B
        between the parties in which Yad Ram had inflicted two blows on
        the head ofRajinder, and also in view of the fact that Yad Ram had
        only used the reverse side of the kassi, we are of the view that none
        of the accused could be convicted of an offence under section 148
        or under. section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal             c
        Code."

     Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
took us through the judgment of the learned Trial Court to contend that the
defence story that the deceased-Rajinder had another fall from the staircase        D
at about 7/7.15 on 25.9.1992 has been disbelieved therein on assigning
cogent and sufficient reason therefor. In this behalf our attention has also
been drawn to the following findings of the learned trial Judge:

         " ...... !do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel
         for the accused. It is true that Rajinder was admitted to the Civil        E
         Hospital, Narnaul, on 17-9-1992 and was discharged on 25-9-1992
         at 8 A.M. Dr. Vijay Singh PW-I, has stated in cross-examination
         that Rajinder was re-admitted on the same date and was referred to
         the Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, on his advice. He has
         further explained that he has the experience of delayed head-injury        F
         complications taking place within a period of two years. Dr. M.P.
         Lomoria PW-2, who had radiologically examined Rajender, has
         stated that he is not an expert radiologist and that the X-ray machine
         installed at Narnaul in the hospital is small one and sometimes bone
         injuries are not detectable. As per copy of the MLR Ex.PN of
         Rajender, as many as 11 injuries were found on his person, out of          G
         which two were lacerated wounds on the parieto temporal regions.
         One injury was bone deep. Rajender was operated upon by Dr.
         Sanjeev Dua PW-8 on 28-9-1992 and he was testified that had
         found blood collection inside the brain. He has also stated that
         Rajender had died on 30-9-1992 because of the hemorrhage in the            H
    612                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            brain. In cross-examination he stated that as per C.T. report there      ...
             was very large intra-cerebral haematoma with rupture of blood in
             the ventricle and there was a fracture in his skull. He also stated
             that the possibility of having received the head injury by Rajender
             after his discharge on 25-9-1992 and before his re-admission on the
             same date could not be ruled out. From the evidence of the aforesaid
B            Medical Officers it is clear that the fracture of skull ofRajender was
             not detected by Dr. M.P. Lomoria PW-2, when he had radiologically
             examined him. It was for this reason that Rajender was discharged
             from the hospital on 25-9-1992, but on the same day he developed
             complications because of the head injury. There was no external
c            injury on the head at the time of re-admission in the hospital as
             stated in re-examination by Dr. Vijay Singh PW- I."

          It was urged that the High Court committed a serious error in holding
    that no offence under Sec)ion 307/149 LP.C. was made out for causing
    injuries to Rewti, in view of the clear findings of the learned Trial Judge
D
    relying on or on the basis of the deposition of Dr. A.K. Chhakkar (P.W.7).
    According to the learned counsel seven injuries were found on the person
    of Rewti and thus, there was a possibility that the said injuries could prove
    to be dangerous to life. It was also urged by Mr. Kapoor that the High Court
    also committed an error in arriving at the finding that there was a free-fight
E   between the parties, in view of the fact that it was not necessary on the part
    of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the respondents
    herein.

         In the instant case, we are only concerned with the question as to
p   whether the respondents had any intention to cause the death of the deceased
    Rajinder and attempt to murder Rewti.

          The fact that the parties were armed, is not in dispute. The plea of the
    respondents was that the injuries were inflicted on the deceased Rajinder as
    also upon the appellant and Rewti in exercise of their right of self-defence.
G   It may not be necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the
    person of the accused in all circumstances, but, it is trite that when such a
    plea is raised and the court opines that the version of the accused persons
    may be correct, the explanation of injuries on the person of the accused
    cannot be put to a back seat or cannot simply be ignored. We have perused
H   the evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Dua, who examined himself as P. W.8. Dr. Dua,
                            t



                      UMRAO v. STATE [SINHA, J.]                            613

in his evidence, stated that the possibility of Rajinder having received head       A
injury after the discharge at 8 a.m. on 25.9.1992 and before his re-admission
on the same day at 9 P.M. in the Civil Hospital, cannot be ruled out. On re-
examination by the prosecution Dr. Dua categorically stated that as there was
a head injury, he did not go into the detail. The evidence of Dr. Dua,
whereupon the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, relied upon is suggestive of
                                                                                    B
the fact that the possibility of the said deceased Rajinder suffering a head
injury after he was discharged from the hospital could not be ruled out. It
is not in dispute that X-ray of the head of the deceased was taken when he
was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1992 but no such injury was detected.
The subsequent explanation offered by the prosecution that a small fracture
might not have been noticed in the X-ray machine, is a matter of surmise            c
and conjecture. We have noticed hereinbefore that Dr. Sanjeev Dua-P.W.8,
who had operated upon the deceased, categorically stated that the fracture
 was significant. Even according to the doctor such a fracture might have been
 suffered by the deceased after he was discharged from the hospital.
                                                                                    D
     Evidently, the High Court was right in its finding that the respondents
could not be found to be guilty· for causing the death of the deceased
Rajinder.

      Similarly, the findings of the High Court to the effect that the
respondents had not formed any common intention, therefore, cannot be said          E
to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The fact that both parties caused
injuries to the members of the other side is not in dispute. The fact that the
well was situated on the land of the respondent, is also not in dispute. It has
been found as of fact that the electric motor installed in the well belonged
to one of the respondents.                                                          F
       The prosecution laid a false claim thereover. It is in this situation, the
respondents cannot be said to have committed any offence if they had been
removing the motor, which was installed by them, from the well, which is
said to be jointly owned by the parties. If, on the o.ther hand, defence version
is to be accepted, the appellant and the other witnesses having no right over       G
the said motor, could not have removed the same from the well. In any view
of the matter, the dispute was in regard to removing of the motor from the
well. The High Court, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in
 arriving at the finding that the respondents had no common object either to
cause death of the deceased Rajinder or to attempt to cause murder of Rewti.        H
    614                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should
    not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.

          We are satisfied upon examination of the materials on record and in
    particular, evidence of P.W.8, that the view taken by the High Court is a
    possible view.
B
          We, therefore, find it difficult to interfere with the impugned judgment
    of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

    v.s.                                                        Appeals dismissed.