# 8 S.C.R. 1115 RAM PAT &·ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA - **Citation:** [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1115 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-05-12 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2007 - **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/8-s-c-r-1115-ram-pat-ors-v-state-of-haryana-26026 - **Pages:** 37 ## Headnote Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 3021149 and 44711481506 A B - Purchase of undivided share in properly by appellants - Coowner's son ploughing the said land - Appellants anned with C weapons entering the suit land and causing fatal injuries to co-owner and injuries to others - Appellants pleading a contrary case - Acquittal by trial court, however, conviction by High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Right of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion D . arises therefor - Appellants were not in settled possession of the property, thus, had no right of private defence to defend the possession of the property- They were aggressors being fully anned - Occurrence of the incident stands admitted - Evidence of co-owner's son trustworthy - Non explanation of E simple injuries sustained by two accused as also delay in lodging FIR not fatal - More so, complainants were not anned, except one who had a small twig. According to the prosecution case, DR, RP along with others purchased undivided share of the owners of F the property. HR was the co-owner of the land. After execution of sale deeds, accused tried to enter into the suit land and plough it. On the fateful day when R-son of HR was ploughing his agricultural land with the tractor and HR was also present, accused-SR, DR, B, RR, RP and BL armed with lathis and jallies caused fatal injuries · to HR. LS, DK and M who came at the scence of · occurrence were also injured. Accused SR and RR were also injured. Trial court acquitted the accused. In appeal, 1115 H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A High Court convicted accused RP u/s 302 and remaining accused u/s 302/149 and also u/s. 447/148/506 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. The accused admittedly did not purchase any specific portion of the property. They purchased undivided share. By reason thereof, in law, they did not acquire any right to obtain possession of the lands. HRdeceased and his family being the co-sharers did not give c any consent for handing over their possession in their favour. Therefore, the accused persons being purchasers of an undivided share merely acquired a right to sue for partition. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of accused. Trial judge was wholly incorrect in holding that D having regard to the stipulations contained in the deeds, possession of the vended properties had been handed over; the vendees would be deemed to be in possession. That is not the law. Handing over of possession is a physical act. Nothing has been brought on record to E establish that in fact physical possession had been handed over by all the co-sharers. [Para 12) [1134-A-C, G-H; 1135-A-B] M. V.S. Manikaya/a Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and F Ors. AIR 1966 SC 470; Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi and Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 46; Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 461, referred to. 1.2. PW 8-R was not confronted with the purported c;3 admission by him. He could have explained the same. In any event, admission on his part was not such which was ~ admissible against him proprio vigore. In a case of this nature, the statement made in the mentioned documents or before the DSP cannot be said to be an admission that H they had been totally dispossessed which would be RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1117 + admissible against PW 8 proprio vigore. Another A - purported admission by PW 8 disclosed that the subordinate judge had confirmed the order of injunction whereagainst appeal was preferred by DR and RP. Parties admittedly had also been litigating before the Revenue Authorities in regard to their respective claims B in the matter of getting their respective names mutated in the revenue records. The entries in the revenue records stood in the name of the deceased and his family. [Para 12] [1136-E-F; 1137-C-F] Bharat Singh and Anr. vs. Bhagirathi (1966) 1 SCR 606; c (Thakur) Nirman Sin ## Text _Characters 0–39,531 of 64,436. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39531 for what follows._ (2009] 8 S.C.R. 1115 RAM PAT &·ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2007) MAY 12, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 3021149 and 44711481506 A B - Purchase of undivided share in properly by appellants - Coowner's son ploughing the said land - Appellants anned with C weapons entering the suit land and causing fatal injuries to co-owner and injuries to others - Appellants pleading a contrary case - Acquittal by trial court, however, conviction by High Court - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Right of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion D . arises therefor - Appellants were not in settled possession of the property, thus, had no right of private defence to defend the possession of the property- They were aggressors being fully anned - Occurrence of the incident stands admitted - Evidence of co-owner's son trustworthy - Non explanation of E simple injuries sustained by two accused as also delay in lodging FIR not fatal - More so, complainants were not anned, except one who had a small twig. According to the prosecution case, DR, RP along with others purchased undivided share of the owners of F the property. HR was the co-owner of the land. After execution of sale deeds, accused tried to enter into the suit land and plough it. On the fateful day when R-son of HR was ploughing his agricultural land with the tractor and HR was also present, accused-SR, DR, B, RR, RP and BL armed with lathis and jallies caused fatal injuries · to HR. LS, DK and M who came at the scence of · occurrence were also injured. Accused SR and RR were also injured. Trial court acquitted the accused. In appeal, 1115 H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A High Court convicted accused RP u/s 302 and remaining accused u/s 302/149 and also u/s. 447/148/506 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. The accused admittedly did not purchase any specific portion of the property. They purchased undivided share. By reason thereof, in law, they did not acquire any right to obtain possession of the lands. HRdeceased and his family being the co-sharers did not give c any consent for handing over their possession in their favour. Therefore, the accused persons being purchasers of an undivided share merely acquired a right to sue for partition. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of accused. Trial judge was wholly incorrect in holding that D having regard to the stipulations contained in the deeds, possession of the vended properties had been handed over; the vendees would be deemed to be in possession. That is not the law. Handing over of possession is a physical act. Nothing has been brought on record to E establish that in fact physical possession had been handed over by all the co-sharers. [Para 12) [1134-A-C, G-H; 1135-A-B] M. V.S. Manikaya/a Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and F Ors. AIR 1966 SC 470; Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi and Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 46; Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Ors. 2009 (2) SCALE 461, referred to. 1.2. PW 8-R was not confronted with the purported c;3 admission by him. He could have explained the same. In any event, admission on his part was not such which was ~ admissible against him proprio vigore. In a case of this nature, the statement made in the mentioned documents or before the DSP cannot be said to be an admission that H they had been totally dispossessed which would be RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1117 + admissible against PW 8 proprio vigore. Another A - purported admission by PW 8 disclosed that the subordinate judge had confirmed the order of injunction whereagainst appeal was preferred by DR and RP. Parties admittedly had also been litigating before the Revenue Authorities in regard to their respective claims B in the matter of getting their respective names mutated in the revenue records. The entries in the revenue records stood in the name of the deceased and his family. [Para 12] [1136-E-F; 1137-C-F] Bharat Singh and Anr. vs. Bhagirathi (1966) 1 SCR 606; c (Thakur) Nirman Singh and Ors. vs. Thakur Lal Rudra Partab ..,... . Narain Singh and Ors. 1926 Privy Council 100, referred to . 1.3. It is proceeded on the basis that the entries made in the revenue records were not decisive for proving D actual possession. Appellants were purchasers. They did not obtain any right to possess the land having not purchased any definite portion of the land; they merely purchased undivided share. Thus, even their vendor could not have put them in possession. Even otherwise, E it has not been denied or disputed that the deceased and his family were in possession prior to 28.6.1993. If that be so, having regard to the provisions contained ins. 110 - of the Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption would arise that the deceased and the members of his famHy continued F to be in possession. [Paras 14] [1138-C-F] 1.4. The four attributes of settled possession referred to in Puran Singh's case eught to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. The question must be considered G keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each -- case. The parties were on litigating terms. The first informant and his family were attending the court in connection with litigations concerning the very self same land. The accused persons came stealthily with a tractor and cultivated it. The High Court for good reasons opined H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A that they had not sown any Bajra which was the specific ~ defence taken by the accused. RA, HP-PW7, who were / independent witnesses, categorically stated that they - could not say as to whether any crop was sown. He, however, opined that had the crop been sown 16 days 8 prior to the occurrence, then the same would have grown to the extent of 6 inch to 1 feet. Such a solitary overt act which had not been repeated on days subsequent to 14.6.1993 in respect whereof even some litigations started and, thus, the same cannot give rise to an inference that c the accused were in settled possession of the land and other attributes in regard thereto have been satisfied so as to enable them to claim a right of private defence in respect of the property. [Para 14 and 15] [1141-D-H; 1142- -- A] D 1.5. The trespassers not only must be put in actual physical possession of the property but also must continue to be in possession. Acquiescence to act of purported possession by the accused on the part of the complainant would arise only if an attempt is made to take E possession in their presence. On the date of occurrence, PW 8 started cultivating. It has been amply proved that the scuffle lasted for only two minutes to two and half minutes. PW8 was not armed with any weapon, so was not HR. It was LS alone who had a small twig (Kamari) in - F his hand. According to him, the same is used to drive camels. Kamari was said to be used by LS in his sole defence as a result whereof SR and RR were injured. [Para 15] [1142-A-D] G Puran Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Rame Gowda (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. and Anr. (2004) 1 SCC ~ - 769, relied on. Munshi Ram vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455, H referred to. RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1119 / ~ 1.6. The injuries on the person of accused-SR and A --" RR were simple in nature. It is true that the fact that two of the accused persons had suffered injuries had not been disclosed in the FIR or in their statement before the Investigating Officer, but the same was not necessary as they got themselves medically examined by the doctor B almost at the same time when the other prosecution witnesses got themselves examined. By that time they had already been arrested. It was the police authorities who had submitted an application along with the injuries chart. They had been brought by constable SS. Thus, the c fact that two of them had suffered injuries in the same - incident was known to the 10. Whereas grievous injuries suffered by the accused are required to be explained by the prosecution, simple injuries need not necessarily be. Non-explanation of simple injuries of the nature suffered D by the accused would not be fatal. [Para 15] [1142-D-H] Hari vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (4) SCALE 103, referred to. 1.7. The nature of injuries suffered by the deceased E and the prosecution witnesses have been noticed. They - had been caused by lathis and/or jallies. Therefore, accused were fully armed with when they came to the -- place of occurrence. They not only assaulted the deceased indiscriminately, but the prosecution witnesses F were also not spared. [Para 16] (1143-F-G] 1.8. From the question put to LS-witness, it is evident that two questions were clubbed together which should not have been permitted by the trial judge. The fate of the G said statements must, therefore, be considered having # , regard to the nature of the suggestion put to him. It is also worthwhile to notice that P.W.8 also accepted that LS had caused injuries to SR and RR in his self defence. LS's \ presence at the spot, therefore, cannot be denied or H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R. A disputed. The fact that some incident had taken place also i could not be denied or disputed. [Para 16] (1144-C-E] ,, ' 1.9. FIR might have been recorded at a later stage. But the information about the occurrence must have B betm given by PW 8 to the office in-charge of Ateli Police Station prior thereto. Even a copy of the FIR was received by th~ Magistrate at about 10.30 p.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officers were not cross examined on that point. In any event, it is wholly unlikely that the FIR c was anti-timed and anti-dated. Even assuming that the same was anti-timed or anti-dated, the fact that an incident had oc:curred was not disputed. At least two of the / accused persons accepted their presence. The defence .... story is that two accused persons had sustained injuries at the hands of LS-PW 12. If occurrence of the incident D stands admitted, even if some delay has been caused in writing of the FIR, the same would not render the entire prosecution case suspicious. [Para 17] (1145-8-F] 1.10. Appellants cannot be said to have been in E 'settled possession' of the land in question. Furthermore, they came wholly armed, whereas except LS who was having a small twig (Kamari), deceased party were not armed with any weapon. It was not a dangerous weapon. No grievous injuries could have been caused by use - F thereof and in fact no grievous injuries have been suffered by the accused SR and RR. Appellants did not raise any plea of self defence. According to them, they were not present at the spot at all. It was submitted that accused no.1 and accused no. 6 raised the plea of self G defence. Trial judge although accepted the said plea but the same was accepted not with particular reference to ~ .... the said accused. All the accused persons did not raise the defence of exercise of right to private defence. In regard to claim of right of self defence, the matter may H have to be considered from somewhat a different angle. RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1121 Accused nos. 6, 7 and 8 were attributed with assault of A ILS and two ladies. [Para 18) (1145-F-H; 1146-A-C] '- 1.11. Any overt act on their part, thus, having regard to the fact that the HR had already been assaulted, there was no evidence against RR as also accused nos. 7 and B 8 that they had participated in assaulting the deceased. The right of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion arises therefor. The trial judge wrongly held so, on the premise that the appellants were in settled possession of the property. If they were-not, they had no c right of private defence to defend the possession of the property. Thus, they were the aggressors being fully armed. Right of private defence need not be specifically raised. [Para 19) (1146-C-F] 1.12. PW 12's presence stands admitted. P.W.8's D presence has been doubted by the Sessions Judge only on the ground that he got his father admitted at 2.30 p.m. The presence of PW 8 could not have been doubted on such slender evidence. He was driving the tractor. Accused persons came prepared to assault the E deceased. By the time the first informant could come and intervene, the entire incident must have occurred as it is • stated that the same took place only for two to two and half minutes. No suggestion had been given to any of the -- prosecution witnesses by the defence that no tractor was F found at the place or it was the deceased who himself was driving the tractor. PW 8 categorically stated that he left the tractor at that place. His evidence, taking a holistic view of the matter, appears to be trustworthy. He vividly described the entire incident. He was cross examined on G all material points. He also explained that by the time he I reached all the accused had started running with their weapons towards their respective houses, and as such he did not suffer any injury. [Para 20] [1150-C-H] H 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. vs. State of WB. (2005) 12 SCC 657, Relied on. i ,,_ Surendra and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 11 SCC 434; Satya Narain Yadav v. Gajanand and Anr. 2008 B (10) SCALE 728; Ravishwar Bishna Alias Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. vs. State of Manjhi and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand 2008 (16) SCALE 45 and Bhanwar Singh and Ors. vs. State of M.P. 2008 (7) SCALE 633, referred to. 1.13. There cannot be any doubt or dispute c whatsoever that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with a. judgment of acquittal, but this has many exceptions. [Para 21) [1150-G-H; 1151A] D State of Punjab vs. Gurnam Kaur and Ors. 2009 (4) SCALE 343; U.O./. vs. Bal Mukund and Ors. 2009 (4) SCALE 606, referred to. Casw Law Reference: E AIR 1966 SC 470 Referred to. Para 12 2008 (7) sec 46 Referred to. Para 12 2009 (2) SCALE 461 Referred to. Para 12 (1966) 1 SCR 606 Referred to. Para 12 ~ F 1926 Privy Council 100 Referred to. Para 13 (1975) 4 sec 518 Relied on. Para 14 (1968) 2 SCR 455 Referred to. Para 14 G (2004) 1 sec 769 Relied on. Para 14 2009 (4) SCALE 103 Referred to. Para 15 + (2005) 12 sec 657 Relied on. Para 19 H RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1123 r (2006) 11 sec 434 Referred to. Para 19 A 2008 (10) SCALE 728 Referred to. Para 19 2008 (16) SCALE 45 Referred to. Para 19 2008 (7) SCALE 633 Referred to. Para 19 B 2009 (4) SCALE 343 Referred to. Para 21 2009 (4) SCALE 606 Referred to. Para 21 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2007. c From the Judgment & Order dated 14.02.2007 of the High / Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 298-DBA/1997. Sushil Kumar, R. K. Kapoor and Harish Chandra Pant (Anis D Ahmed Khan) for the Appellant. T.V. George for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellants, four in number, are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14.2.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court ..... of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.298DBA of 1997, in terms whereof a judgment of acquittal recorded F by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul in case No.27 of 1993 was set aside. 2. We may, at the outset, notice that eight persons were arrayed as accused in the aforementioned case. The High G ~ Court, however, did not grant special leave in respect of -· accused Nos.6 to 8. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of the trial. Accused Nos.2 to 5 only are, therefore, before us. 3. The prosecution case is as under: H 1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A Daya Ram and Ram Pat, along with Rajinder, Surinder and Mukesh alias Manoj had purchased 1/36th share of the ~ right of the owners in the land measuring 264 kanals, 12 marlas ..- comprised of Khewat No.10, Khatauni No.69 mustkil and Ki Ila No.24/27 and 1/48th share of 37 kanals 8 marlas of land by B reason of a deed of sale dated 7.5.1993. They are said to have purchased 1/18th undivided share in the land measuring 264 kanals 12 marlas and 1/24th share of land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas totaling 14 kanals 14 marlas of land by reason of a deed of sale dated 24.5.1993. Allegedly, they sowed some c Bajra crop therein. Occurrence is said to have taken place on the land comprised of Khasra No.24/8/1 situated at village Nawadi. Harda Ram (the deceased) claimed himself to be the co-owner < D and in possession of the said land for a long time. He claimed right thereon on the basis of khasra girdawaries. Appellants, as noticed hereinbefore, claimed to be in possession thereover in terms of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 7.5.1993 and 24.5.1993. According to the prosecution, however, the deceased was in possession of the land and after the execution E of the said deeds of sale, it was the accused persons who had tried to enter into the suit land and plough it. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by P.W.8 - Rajbir" was that he was ploughing his agricultural land with his tractor on or about 14.7.1993. His father Harda Ram ~ F ("the deceased" for short) was also standing in the field. Sheo Ram, Daya Ram, Bajrang and Raja Ram armed with lathies and Ram Pat and Balwant armed with Jellies came at the spot. The entire occurrence as would appear from the depositions G of the prosecution witnesses before the court lasted for hardly two to two and half minutes. Ram Pat is said to have given a jelli blow on the head of t .,, the deceased; Sheo Ram inflicted a lathi blow above his eyes; Balwant Singh gave jelli blow on the back of his neck (Gudhi); H RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1125 [S.B. SINHA, J.] Daya Ram inflicted a lathi blow on his back and Bajrang also A r inflicted a lathi blow on his person. In the FIR, Rajbir further stated that in the meanwhile his uncle Lal Singh, his aunt Dhankauri wife of Lal Singh and his sister Mamli, who were fetching water from a water tap situated B nearby, had arrived at the scene of occurrence. Basanti and Santosh armed with lath is came there. Whereas Basanti dealt a lathi blow on the head of Mamli, Santosh gave a lathi blow on the person of Dhankauri. P.W. 8 further stated that Raja Ram also inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Lal Singh. The c occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Ami Lal son of Sohan and Ram Avtar son of Bhuru Ram, who intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and thereafter the accused persons left the spot with their weapons. P.W. 8 further alleged that after getting the injured admitted in the D Primary Health Centre, Ateli, he proceeded towards the Police Station for lodging the FIR. His statement was recorded at 1.50 p.m. The deceased was, however, taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul. Head Constable Kailash Chand (P.W. 13) came to E learn thereabout on reaching Primary Health Centre, Ateli. He recorded the statement of Dhankauri, Mamli and Lal Singh. He thereafter came to Civil Hospital, Narnaul with a view to examine the deceased but it was found that he was not in a position to mak.e a statement. The doctor had also reported that the injuries suffered by the deceased were dangerous to life F and as such the offence was converted to one under Section 307 IPC. 4. Before the learned Sessions Judge, 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some of the witnesses G. although named in the charge-sheet were not examined by the public prosecutor on the premise that it was not necessary to examine them. They are Dr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, Dr. O.P. Saroha, Sheo Ram, Babu Lal, Raghbir, Mamli, Dhankauri and Ram Avtar. Lal Singh and Suraj Bhan H 1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A were also not examined on the ground of having been won over B by the accused. i 5. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied upon the evidence of Rajbir (P.W.8), Lal Singh (P.W.12). We would refer to their evidence a little later. 6. We may, however, notice that in the aforementioned incidence, Mamli, Dhankauri, wife of Lal Singh, as also Lal Singh were injured. They were examined by Dr. S.C. Goel (P.W.5). Mamli was examined immediately after the said C occurrence and two injuries were found on her person, namfiiy: D "1. There was a lacerated fresh bleeding would present on parietal prominence, size 5.5 ems x bone deep. X-ray was advised. There was swelling of 2 ems diameter around it. 2. On the back of the chest, there was a reddish contusion of 11 ems x 1/1/2 ems. Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised." E Dhankauri, wife of Lal Singh was found to have suffered F G H four injuries. He was examined at about 1.40 p.m. The injuries suffered by her are as under: "1. Two ems. long lacerated wound on the left fore-arm of the size, in the bangles area, Fresh bleeding was present. 2. On the top of the scalp a lacerated wound 4 ems x 1 cm, transverse, skin deep with swelling of 1 cm in diameter around it was present. It was freshly bleeding and it was advised x-ray. 3. There was a skin colour swelling on the left side of the fore-head size 4 x 3 ems. Tender was hard and there was 1 cm long reddish abrasion on it was present. X-ray was advised. RAM PAT & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1127 [S.B. SINHA, J.] 4. The left shoulder blade was swollen, tender little A reddish on the back on the upper part of the chest. The movement of the shoulder was painful. Advised X-ray. Lal Singh was examined at about 1.55 p.m. He is said to B have suffered the following injuries: "1. Below right parietal prominence, there was a -t lacerated freshly bleeding wound of 4 x Yz cm bone deep with swelling of 1 cm. diameter around it. Xray was advised. c 2. In front of left parietal prominence, freshly bleeding lacerated wound of 4 x Yz cm was present. It was bone deep with the swelling of 1 II 1 /2 of diameter around it. X-ray was advised. D 3. There was a reddish abrasion of 2 ems on the top . of right shoulder. Tender. Movement ofshoulder was painful. It was kept under observation. 4. Two penetrated wounds of Yz cm x Yz cm on the right. E leg, inner side. Yz ems apart from each other. It was 1 1/1/2 cm. deep. Freshly bleeding. It was kept .. under observaUon. Margins were lacerated . The doctor opined that the !njuries suffered by Mamli, F Dhankauri and Lal Singh were inflicted by a blunt weapon and were caused within a duration of 24 hours of examination. Two of the accused, namely, Raja Ram and Sheo Ram were also found to have suffered injuries. They were also examined by Dr. S.C. Goel (P.W.5). G i The injuries suffered by Sheo Ram are as under: "1. A lacerated wound of 3 ems present on top and ' middle of fore-head, upper end on the scalp Y