UMRAO versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UMRAO 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
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 
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 
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 of deceased-Evidence of doctor was suggestive of possibility 
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 
of deceased. 
The appellant lodged FIR alleging that when he went to the tube 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
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. 
B 
c 
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 
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. 
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. 
E 
F 
G 
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 
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 
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 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.