http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: AMBIKA PRASAD AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/01/2000

BENCH: G.B.Patnaik, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

     Shah,J.

     These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 21.3.1997 passed by the High Court of Delhi dismissing Criminal  Appeals  No.45/92,  49/92 and 50/92 filed  by  the present  appellants, which arise out of common judgment  and order  dated 24.03.1992 passed by the Addl.  Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.508/91.  In all six persons namely Ambika  Prasad  (A1), Krishanpal (A2), Ram Adhar  (A3),  Ram Chander  (A4),  Shiv Raj Singh (A5) and Rajinder Singh  (A6) were  tried  for the offences punishable under Sections  148 IPC,  341  read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149 IPC and  302 read  with 149 IPC.  Additionally, accused Ram Chander  (A4) was  charged for the offence punishable under Section 27  of the Arms Act.  Out of them two were acquitted and appellants Ambika  Prasad,  Krishanpal Singh, Ram Chander and  Rajinder Singh  were convicted for the offences under Section  302/34 IPC,  341/34  IPC and 307/34 IPC.  For sentence,  the  trial court  observed  that  murder appeared  to  be  pre-planned. Accused  Ram Chander was a famous wrestler and for others no criminal  antecedent was brought to the notice of the Court, therefore,  it was held that it was not one of the rarest of the  rare  cases.  Hence, for the offence  punishable  under Section   302/34   IPC,  they   were  sentenced  to   suffer imprisonment  for  life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-.   For the  offence punishable under Section 307 read with  Section 34  IPC,  the court imposed a sentence of four years  and  a fine  of  Rs.100/-  and  for the  offence  punishable  under Section  341  read with Section 34 IPC fine of Rs.100/-  was imposed.    Against  that  judgment,   Ambika   Prasad   and Krishanpal  filed Criminal Appeal No.45 of 1992, Ram Chander filed Criminal Appeal No.49 of 1992 and Rajinder Singh filed Criminal  Appeal  No.50  of 1992 before the  High  Court  of Delhi.   All  the  appeals  were  heard  together  and  were disposed  by a common judgment and order.  That judgment and order  is  challenged  by Ambika Prasad  and  Krishanpal  by filing  Criminal Appeal No.1152/97, by Ram Chander by filing Criminal  Appeal No.1153/97 and by Rajinder Singh by  filing Criminal  Appeal No.1154/97.  Since these appeals arise  out of  common  judgment  and order and from the  same  sessions trial,  they  are  disposed of by this common  judgment  and order.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

     It is the prosecution version that Pratap Singh is the owner  of  the  disputed land in village  Libaspur.   It  is alleged  that  he sold 2 bighas out of 24 bighas of land  to one  Mohinder  Yadav  and over this  transaction  there  was dispute  between the vendor and the vendees, for which civil suit  was pending.  A few days before the incident, Shiv Raj (acquitted  accused)  told Kishan Dei (PW10) wife of  Pratap Singh  that he had purchased the plot from Shri Ram  Chander and  Ram Adhar accused and that he would take possession  of the  land.   She told him that it was a disputed land.   PW4 Vikram  Singh, PW5 Karan Singh and PW7 Anirudh Singh are the sons  of Pratap Singh.  Deceased Virender Singh was the  son of  elder  brother of Pratap Singh.  For the assault on  the complainant party and injury caused to the deceased Virender Singh as well as injured witnesses, FIR was lodged by Vikram Singh  (PW4) on 30.06.1982 at 12.40 p.m.  It was stated that they  were  owners  of  24 bighas and some  biswas  of  land towards  East of G.T.  road by the side of village Libaspur. For the said land, there was a transaction with Saroop Nagar Housing Society through Mohinder Yadav.  It was decided that on the receipt of entire consideration the possession of the land  would  be  handed  over  to  the  vendees.   As   sale consideration  was not paid, they were in possession of  the said land.  As the Society started constructing houses, they filed  suit  and obtained stay order which was in  operation till  date.   It was further stated that at about  10  a.m., when  Karan  Singh, Anirudh, Virender Singh  were  returning after  ploughing  the land by their tractor,  Ambika  Prasad alongwith  his  companion  Rajinder   Diarywala,  Ram  Adhar Pehalwan  and  his so called adopted  brother  (subsequently identified as Ram Chander), whose both ears were damaged and who  was  known to the informant came there by the  side  of house  of  Ambika  Prasad alongwith 4 to  5  other  persons. Rajinder  was  holding a ballam (Spear), Ambika  Prasad  was having a lathi, Ram Adhar was equipped with jaili (rake) and his  so-called  adopted brother was armed with  gun  whereas other  persons  were  holding lathis.  Ram Adhar in  a  loud voice  gave a lalkara that nobody should be spared and their dead  bodies should be laid so that there may not be quarrel again.   At  that stage, he drove back the  tractor  towards plot  of  one  person  named Dhillon  but  the  tractor  got entrapped in a ditch.  So, all the brothers came down of the tractor  and  at that time Ram Chander wrestler  brother  of Pehalwan  Ram  Adhar fired a shot from his gun, as a  result Virender  Singh  fell down and died on the  spot.   Rajinder gave  a  blow of ballam on the face of PW5 Karan Singh,  and accused Ram Adhar and Ambika Prasad assaulted Karan Singh by jaili  and lathi.  Anirudh PW7 was also beaten by lathi.  He was  not injured because he hid himself behind the  tractor. At  that time, wrestler fired at him but he escaped and  ran away.   He  raised alarm for help and on hearing the  alarm, Prem Singh PW8 and Rattan Singh PW10 alongwith other persons arrived  at  the spot.  He has further stated that with  the help  of these persons accused Ambika Prasad and  Krishanpal were  overpowered  and  during the  scuffle  they  sustained injuries.  They were apprehended on the spot while they were trying to run away after committing the crime.  It is stated that  assault took place at about 10.15 a.m.  and the police reached  there  soon  after  the  occurrence.   Two  injured witnesses  and two accused who were apprehended on the spot, were  taken  to  Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi by  SI  Prithipal Singh  of Police Control Room between 12.05 p.m.  and  12.10 p.m.  Thereafter, FIR was recorded at about 12.40 p.m.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

     In  the  present  case, injuries  to  the  prosecution witnesses  Karan  Singh  and  Anirudh Singh  are  proved  by examining  PW1  Dr.  Joginder Mittal of Hindu Rao  Hospital. PW2  Dr.  P.K.  Sakondia of the said hospital also  examined accused  Ambika  Prasad and Krishanpal Singh and has  proved injuries  suffered  by  them.  Injuries to the  accused  are abrasions  and  bruises.   PW3 Dr.  L.T.   Ramani  conducted postmortem  examination  of Virender Singh on 30.06.1982  at about  3.00  p.m.  and recovered 43 pellets from  his  body. According  to  him the injuries were caused by the fire  arm except  injury No.3 which was an abrasion.  According to the doctor,  the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of  nature  to cause death.  In the present case, motive  is the  land  dispute  between the complainant  party  and  the accused.   The  occurrence at the scene of offence  is  also established  and  is  not  disputed.   With  regard  to  the evidence  of PW4 Vikram Singh who has lodged exhaustive FIR, the  High court observed that on occasions he had gone  back from his initial statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.  and in that  sense  has  turned hostile.  The Court  observed  that reading  his  evidence  as a whole it appeared that  he  was under fear from the accused and that he has stated so in the cross-examination.   The  High Court further  observed  that fear  prevails in the mind of complainant party which  could be  for the reason that accused party was stronger in  terms of  money  power and muscle power.  After  appreciating  the evidence  of  prosecution  in detail and  relying  upon  the evidence of injured witnesses, Karan Singh (PW5) and Anirudh Singh (PW7), the High Court dismissed the appeals.

     At  this  stage,  we  would   state  that  there   are concurrent  findings given by both the courts below based on appreciation  of evidence and unless it is pointed out  that the  said appreciation is unreasonable or unjustified, there is no scope for interference in these appeals.  Keeping that in  mind, we would decide the appeals after considering  the contentions raised by the parties.

     Mr.   R.K.  Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for Ram  Chander  submitted  that there was no  reason  for  the courts  below  not  to accept the plea of  alibi  set-up  by accused  Ram Chander, whose consistent stand was that he was getting  training  for  Asiad Games throughout  the  day  of occurrence  in Akhara.  He was also not named in the  FIR. He  submitted that prosecution witness Suraj Bhan (PW20) who was  examined by the prosecution to show that appellant  was missing  from akhara at the time of occurrence was  declared hostile and further there was no reason for not relying upon the  defence witness HC Mangat Ram (DW5).  He also submitted that evidence of PW5 Karan Singh and PW7 Anirudh Singh which is  relied  upon  by  the courts below  for  convicting  the appellants  suffers  from many infirmities and ought not  to have been relied upon for convicting the appellants.

     Mr.   D.D.Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for Ambika  Prasad  and Krishanpal submitted that there  was  no reason  for  the courts below for believing the  prosecution version  that the complainant party had gone for cultivating the  land  which was sold by them and over which  there  was construction   of  50-60  houses.   It  is  submitted   that complainant  party  was  aggressor and  the  accused  Ambika Prasad  had  received as many as eight injuries and some  of them  were  grievous.  He submitted that courts  erroneously relied  upon the prosecution version that Ambika Prasad  and Krishanpal  received  injuries while they were running  away

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

and they were followed by the villagers who caused injuries. The  learned  counsel appearing on behalf of Rajinder  Singh adopted  the  contentions raised by the learned counsel  for the other accused.

     In  addition to the aforesaid contentions, counsel for the   appellants   submitted  that  in  the   present   case prosecution  has not examined the investigating officer  who was  important  witness and this has prejudiced the  defence raised  by  the  accused.  For the  non-examination  of  the investigating  officer,  learned  counsel   for  the   State submitted  that  he  was not aware of any reason  given  for non-examination  of  investigating   officer.   However,  he submitted  that  one of the accused is a police officer  and known  wrestler and, therefore, presuming that investigation is  intentionally or unintentionally faulty yet that  cannot be the ground for disbelieving the injured witnesses.  It is his  contention  that investigating officer might  not  have stepped  in  the witness box because Ram Chander belongs  to the  same  department and that is the reason why PW20  Suraj Bhan  turned  hostile and DW5 Mangat Singh has stepped  into the witness box to support the plea of alibi of Ram Chander.

     Firstly,  we  would  deal with the contention  of  the learned  counsel for the accused that non-examination of the investigating  officer has adversely affected their defence. In our view, non-examination of investigating officer in the present  case has no bearing on appreciation of the evidence of  injured eye-witnesses.  The learned Sessions Judge after analysing  the evidence of SI Kulwant Rai (PW31),  Inspector Suraj  Bhan  (PW20)  observed that they resiled  from  their earlier  recorded statements and wanted to help accused  Ram Chander.   The High Court has also observed that reason  for non-  appearance of investigating officer is not far to seek and  obviously he was trying to help the accused.  The  High Court further stated that prosecution case cannot be allowed to  suffer  at  the hands of the  investigating  officer  or agencies  and  investigating officer cannot be permitted  to hold  the  prosecution  to ransom by  his  deliberate  acts. Dealing  with  a  case  of negligence on  the  part  of  the investigating  officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v.  State of  MP  {(1995)  5  SCC  518} observed that  in  a  case  of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused  if  the case is otherwise established  conclusively because  in that event it would tantamount to be falling  in the  hands  of erring investigating officer.  Similarly,  in Ram  Bihari Yadav v.  State of Bihar {(1998) 4 SCC 517  para 13} this Court observed:-

     In  such  cases, the story of the  prosecution  will have  to be examined dehors such omissions and  contaminated conduct  of  the officials otherwise the mischief which  was deliberately  done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied  to  the complainant party and this  would  obviously shake  the  confidence  of  the people  not  merely  in  the law-enforcing  agency  but  also in  the  administration  of justice.

     Further  in Paras Yadav and others v.  State of  Bihar {(1999) 2 SCC 126} this Court held:-

     It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because  of  negligence.  Hence the prosecution evidence  is required  to  be examined dehors such omissions to find  out whether the said evidence is reliable or not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

     Further, it is to be borne in mind that criminal trial is  meant  for doing justice to the accused, victim and  the society  so  that  law and order is maintained.   Hence,  as observed  by this court in State of UP v.  Anil Singh,  (AIR 1988  SC 1998) it is necessary to remember that a Judge does not  preside  over  a criminal trial merely to see  that  no innocent man is punished.  A Judge also presides to see that a  guilty  man does not escape.  One is as important as  the other.   Both  are  public  duties which the  Judge  has  to perform.   Hence, we would only state that it is unfortunate state  of affair that police officers resiled from their own statements  and deposed something contrary before the court. Equally,  it  is unfortunate that investigating officer  has not  stepped  into the witness box without  any  justifiable ground.   But  this conduct of the investigating officer  or other  hostile  witnesses cannot be a ground for  discarding the  evidence  of PW5 and PW7 whose presence on the spot  is established  beyond  reasonable doubt.  They  have  suffered injuries  and  their  evidence is  corroborated  by  medical evidence.   It  is  also in-conformity with  what  has  been stated  in  the FIR.  In any case, investigating officer  is not  at all material witness for the purpose of establishing whether  accused or the complainant party was the aggressor. Not  only that, accused have examined the defence  witnesses for  establishing their say.  Hence, non-examination of  the investigating  officer  cannot be a ground for holding  that injured witnesses should not be believed.

     It  is  also to be pointed out that PW4  Vikram  Singh (informant)  who  had  lodged   FIR  immediately  was  under constant  threat  and was compelled not to speak  the  truth despite the fact that he was the brother of deceased.  Other witnesses  also turned hostile including PW6 Prem Singh  son of  Pratap  Singh  and PW8 Rattan Lal, which  indicates,  as observed  by the High Court, that accused party was stronger in terms of money power and muscle power.  At this stage, we would observe that the Sessions Judge ought to have followed the  mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C.  of completing the trial by  examining the witnesses from day to day and not giving a chance  to accused to threaten or win over the witnesses  so that  they may not support the prosecution.  It appears from the record that examination-in-chief of PW4 Vikram Singh was over  on 06.2.1984.  The counsel representing Ambika  Prasad requested  the court that because of his uncles demise,  he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witness and, therefore,  recording of further cross-examination might  be adjourned.   Thereafter,  the witness was cross-examined  in the  month  of  July,  1985.  In our view,  this  is  highly improper.   Even  if  the  request for  adjournment  of  the learned   counsel   for  the   accused  was  accepted,   the cross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two or three days.

     It  is next contended that despite the fact that 20 to 25  persons collected at the spot at the time of incident as deposed   by  the  prosecution   witnesses,  not  a   single independent  witness  has been examined and,  therefore,  no reliance  should  be placed on the evidence of PW5 and  PW7. This  submission also deserves to be rejected.  It is  known fact  that independent persons are reluctant to be a witness or  to  assist  the investigation.  Reasons are not  far  to seek.   Firstly,  in  cases where injured witnesses  or  the close relative of the deceased are under constant threat and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

they  dare  not depose truth before the  court,  independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guaranteed.  That belief  cannot  be said to be without any substance.   Other reason  may  be  the  delay in  recording  the  evidence  of independent  witnesses  and  repeated  adjournments  in  the court.   In any case, if independent persons are not willing to  cooperate with the investigation, prosecution cannot  be blamed  and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the evidence of  injured  witnesses.  Dealing with similar contention  in State of UP v.  Anil Singh (Supra) this Court observed:-

     In  some  cases,  the  entire  prosecution  case  is doubted  for not examining all witnesses to the  occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public  in  the  investigation of crimes.   The  public  are generally  reluctant  to come forward to depose  before  the Court.   It  is,  therefore,  not   correct  to  reject  the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the  occurrence have not been examined.  Nor it is proper to reject  the  case for want of corroboration  by  independent witnesses  if  the  case  made out  is  otherwise  true  and acceptable.

     The learned counsel for the accused further raised the contention  that there was delay in recording the statements of  injured witnesses, therefore, their evidence should  not be  accepted,  also requires to be rejected.  In Dr  Krishna Pal & Anr.  v.  State of U.P.  {(1996) 7 SCC 194} this court rejected  similar  contention  of   non-explanation  by  the prosecution  as to why eye- witnesses had not been  examined shortly  after  the  incident and for  inordinate  delay  in examining  them, by holding that it would not be a ground to discard  the convincing and reliable evidence adduced in the case.  This contention is also considered by both the courts and  has  rightly not been accepted.  The trial court  after considering  the evidence of PW5 Karan Singh held that delay in   recording  the  statement  of   this  witness  by   the investigating  agency  stands explained because Karan  Singh was  having  injuries on his face and in the region  of  his mouth.   His mouth was swollen with injuries all around  and he  could  hardly  speak.   It  is  also  pointed  out  that investigation  officer  was  visiting  the  hospital  almost daily, obviously for the purpose of recording his statement. Similarly,  PW7  Anirudh Singh has stated that he was  under tremendous  fear  from the accused party.  He was not  going out of his house and was staying with his in-laws and moving stealthily.   It  is  to  be stated that  both  the  injured witnesses  were found in the injured condition at the  scene of  offence.  From that place they were removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by SI Prithi Pal Singh, who reached there after the occurrence.  Their injuries are also proved by Dr.  Joginder Mittal,  PW1.   They have deposed before the court that  Ram Chander  was having a gun in his hand, Rajinder was having a ballam  and  accused  Ambika Prasad was having a  lathi  and other  accused  were also having lathis.   Accused  Rajinder inflicted  ballam blow and Ram Adhar inflicted jaili blow on Karan Singh.  Ram Adhar also inflicted jaili blow on Anirudh Singh.   It is also stated by them that Ram Chander fired  a shot  from his gun which hit Virender Singhs chest and as a result  Virender  Singh  fell on the spot  and  died.   Both specifically  denied the defence version that they alongwith their  brothers  started demolishing the wall of  Gurudwara. Both  the  witnesses  have narrated the  entire  prosecution version.   Further  PW4  who had resiled  from  his  earlier statement  because  of the fear adhered to his version  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

all  the  accused  were known to him and came there  on  the spot.   He has also stated that Ambika Prasad and Krishanpal were  apprehended  on  the spot.  Mr.  Jain  learned  senior counsel  for  accused  Ram  Chander  has  pointed  out  that evidence  of PW5 Karan Singh is inconsistent because he  has deposed  that  he  became   unconscious  immediately   after receiving  the  injuries  and yet he told  the  police  that accused  persons  ran  away  towards   the  East  after  the occurrence.   He  has also pointed out that the witness  has shown  his  ignorance  whether his mother (Kishan  Dei)  was examined  as PW10.  In our view, the aforesaid insignificant embellishments  would not in any way affect his evidence and both the courts, therefore, rightly relied upon the evidence of the injured witnesses.

     Now, we would deal with the next contention of learned senior  counsel, Mr.  Jain appearing for accused Ram Chander who allegedly used fire arm and caused the death of Virender Singh,  that he is not named in the FIR and, therefore,  the evidence  of eye-witnesses should not be relied upon.   This contention requires to be rejected because the eye-witnesses were  knowing  him (Ram Chander) and was a  known  wrestler, working   in  the  police   department.   His  identity  was mentioned  in  the  FIR as moohbola brother of  Ram  Adhar Pehalwan  and  whose  ears  have   been  damaged.   All  the witnesses  namely  PW4,  PW5, PW7 have identified  him,  and there was no reason for them to falsely implicate him.  Both the  courts have rightly considered this aspect and rejected the  same.   Further,  in his statement  under  Section  313 Cr.P.C.   he pleaded his alibi and has stated that he was in police    department    and     was      a    wrestler    of national/international  team.  As he was selected for  Asiad 1982,  he  used  to remain in Akhara for practice  and  that Akhara  is 8 to 9 km.  from the place of occurrence.  On the day  of  occurrence, HC Mangat Ram and  Constable  Ghanshyam were  having wrestling training with him in Akhara.  When he came  to  know  that he has been involved in this  case,  he surrendered  himself.   He  stated that DBB1  .12  bore  gun belongs  to  him  and  it  was never used  at  the  time  of incident.   His plea is supported by the defence witness DW5 HC  Mangat  Ram.   Further, the prosecution  witnesses  PW20 Suraj  Bhan and PW31 SI Kulwant Rai have resiled from  their earlier  statements and have not supported the  prosecution. This  plea is also rightly rejected by both the courts.  The trial  court appreciated the evidence of DW5 HC Mangat  Ram. In  his  cross-examination he admitted that he had not  told about the presence of accused Ram Chander in Akhara at the relevant  time to SHO or the investigating officer.  He  has also  admitted  that practice hours were from 5.00 a.m.   to 8.00  a.m.   The trial court, therefore, held that  as  duty hours were from 5.00 a.m.  to 8.00 a.m.  and as the incident had  taken  place at about 10.15 a.m.  there was  sufficient time  for  accused to be present at the place  of  incident. Hence,  there  was no reason to disbelieve the  evidence  of injured  two eye-witnesses and PW4 Vikram Singh with  regard to presence of the accused at the scene of offence.

     The  learned senior counsel Mr.  Thakur appearing  for accused  Ambika  Prasad and Krishanpal submitted that  there was  no  reason  to disbelieve the plea  of  accused  Ambika Prasad.   Ambika  Prasad has stated in his  statement  under Section  313  Cr.P.C.  that he had purchased a plot  in  the name  of his brother from one Bhagwan Dass;  he had built  a room on the same and that he was elected Secretary of Saroop Nagar  Welfare Association;  prior to the date of  incident,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Vikram  Singh, Karan Singh and Virender Singh had demolished the boundary walls of many houses with a tractor but had not demolished  each house;  on 30.6.1982 at about 10.00 a.m all these  persons armed with lathis and other weapons came with a tractor and started demolishing walls of the plots;  there was  a  Gurudwara  consisting of one room managed  by  Santa Singh which had also a boundary wall;  the complainant party with  their tractor demolished one boundary wall of the said Gurudwara,  so various people protested and started throwing stones.   Complainant party also started beating him and  at that stage someone from the crowd fired, which hit Virender. He  fell  down on the spot.  After riots in the  year  1982, said Gurudwara was razed to ground.  From the aforesaid plea of  the  accused,  the learned counsel  submitted  that  the complainant  party  went  for   cultivating  the  fields  is absolute  false  because  there was no land which  could  be cultivated.   In our view, this additional submission  taken by  the counsel is without any basis.  Further in any set of circumstance  Pratap  Singh  was the owner of more  than  24 bighas of agricultural land, out of which agreement was only for  sale  of 2 bighas of land.  Therefore,  remaining  land could be presumed to be cultivable one.  As such, it has not been  pointed out at any stage by the defence that there was no other land which was cultivable.  The learned counsel Mr. Thakur  further  submitted  that as  complainant  party  was demolishing  the wall of Gurudwara, various people protested and  started throwing stones and at that stage someone  from the  crowd  fired,  which hit Virender.  In our  view,  this defence  version  is totally baseless.  On this aspect,  the trial  court rightly observed that no person whose  boundary wall  was demolished has been examined and that no  evidence was forthcoming from any person from Gurudwara that boundary wall  of  Gurudwara  was demolished.  Further, there  is  no reason to believe the defence version that somebody from the crowd  fired  which  hit  Virender   Singh.   Hence,  it  is difficult  to  believe  the  plea   of  Ambika  Prasad  that complainant party was aggressor and they came on the spot to demolish  the  construction  made by the accused  and  other persons.   There  is  nothing  on record  to  indicate  that complainant  party  was armed with any weapons.  As  against this,  accused  were armed with deadly weapons  namely  fire arm,  jaili, ballam (spear) and lathis.  Injuries caused  to the complainant party were more serious while minor injuries were  caused  to  accused Ambika Prasad  and  Krishanpal  as deposed  by  PW2 Dr.  P.K.  Sakondia.  The learned  counsel, Mr.  Thakur also submitted that there was no reason or rhyme for  non- examining the Patwari, who was cited as a  witness and  was  given  up by the prosecution.  In our  view,  with regard  to  the  incident  examination  of  patwari  is  not material.   What  was  agreed to be sold as deposed  by  the witnesses was only 2 bighas out of 24 bighas of agricultural land.   Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant  that complainant party came there on the spot  to demolish  the  construction  and  they  were  aggressors  is without any foundation and substance.

     In  the  result, no interference is called for in  the aforementioned   appeals.   Accordingly,   Criminal   Appeal No.1152 of 1997 filed by Ambika Prasad and Krishan Pal Singh is  dismissed,  their bail-bonds are cancelled and they  are directed  to surrender forthwith to undergo their  remaining sentences;   Criminal  Appeal No.1153 of 1997 filed  by  Ram Chander  and  Criminal  Appeal  No.1154  of  1997  filed  by Rajinder Singh are also dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9