Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999 v. State of Punjab

Present: Ms. B.K. Mann, Advocate, for appellant Jasbir Singh. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for appellant Harinder Singh. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the afore-mentioned -2- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. appeals as they are out of the same First Information Report. Vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 21.1.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Gurdaspur, appellants Jasbir Singh and Harinder Singh were convicted and sentenced under Sections 307, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Under Section 307 of the Code, each of the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 324 of the Code, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 506 of the Code they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence these appeals by appellants Jasbir Singh and Harinder Singh. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on

30.8.1996 at about 8 P.M, Sulakhan Singh was going to his house and when he reached near the house of Ajit Singh, appellant Harinder Singh armed with a knife and appellant Jasbir Singh, also armed with a knife, came behind him. Appellant Jasbir Singh caught hold of Sulakhan Singh, gagged his mouth with his hands and dragged him towards the metalled road. Appellant Harinder Singh inflicted fourteen blows with knife on the person of Sulakhan Singh. On receipt of the injuries, Sulakhan Singh fell down on the ground. Thereafter, appellant Jasbir Singh -3- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. gave seven blows with his knife. Ajit Singh P.W was on the roof of his house at that time and had witnessed the occurrence. On hearing the alarm raised by Sulakhan Singh, Ajit Singh rushed to the spot and raised hue and cry. Thereafter, the appellants ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. While leaving the place, the appellants threatened that if any person tried to take the Panchayat land, he would also be treated as Sulakhan Singh was treated. Bhupinder Singh had also reached the spot and had witnessed the occurrence. Injured Sulakhan Singh was taken to Amritsar where he was medically examined and operated upon. It is further case of the prosecution that during days of terrorism in Punjab, appellant Harinder Singh had forcibly taken possession of Panchayat land, but after some time the land was taken by Sulakhan Singh. On account of this, appellant Harinder Singh nursed a grudge against Sulakhan Singh. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by Ajit Singh before the police. On completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was put in the Court against the accused. The accused were put to trial for the offences under Section 307, 324 and 506 of the Code. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Sulakhan Singh (P.W.1), complainant Ajit Singh (P.W.2), Dr. Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.3), Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Singh (P.W.4), Head Constable -4- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. Satnam Singh (P.W.5), Dr.Kulwant Singh (P.W.6), Dr. Jayant Chawla (P.W.7), Constable Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.8), Dr.Ashwani Kumar (P.W.9), Assistant Sub Inspector Jarnail Singh (P.W.10), Moharrir Head Constable Narinderjit Singh (P.W.11), Dr.Neeti Rajan Singh (P.W.12), J.S. Mann (P.W.13) and Draftsman Lakhbir Singh (P.W.14). In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. Appellant Harinder Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated as under:- “ I am innocent. In fact I have been given injuries by Ajit Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Bittu in the lane opposite to the house of Kashmir Singh Sarpanch and the complainant party manipulated injuries in order to make out a counter defence and procured false medical report and made the false case against me at the connivance of the police because the son of Sulakhan Singh is serving in the Police Station Fatehgarh Churian at the relevant time. I have got no relations with Jasbir Singh, who was not present at the time of alleged occurrence. “ -5- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. Jagdev Singh, Ahlmad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala Dr. Narvail Singh were examined by the appellants in their defence as D.W.1 and D.W.2, respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. While arguing on behalf of appellant Jasbir Singh, it has been submitted that son of injured Sulakhan Singh was serving in the Punjab Police and was posted in the same Police Station under the jurisdiction of which the occurrence had taken place. The F.I.R was lodged after a delay of 45 hours and this delay had been used to falsely implicate accused-appellant Jasbir Singh, who was neither related to appellant Harinder Singh nor had any interest in the land in question which belonged to the Panchayat and was under the cultivation of appellant Harinder Singh. Appellant Jasbir Singh belongs to another village i.e Village Langarwal. He does not belong to the village of appellant Harinder Singh. Learned counsel for appellant Jasbir Singh, while referring to the sequence of events, argued that as per the prosecution case appellant Harinder Singh gave fourteen injuries with knife; that at that time appellant Jasbir Singh had caught hold of injured Sulakhan Singh; that after receipt of these injuries Sulakhan Singh fell down on the ground; and that while he was lying down on the ground appellant Jasbir Singh inflicted injuries to Sulakhan Singh with knife. According to the learned counsel, this -6- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. version is not believable as appellant Jasbir Singh had no reason to inflict injuries to the injured while he had already fallen down on the ground. It was particularly so when Jasbir Singh had no enmity with Sulakhan Singh. While arguing on behalf of appellant Harinder Singh, his learned counsel argued that there was a cross version in this case. Appellant Harinder Singh had also received injuries on his person and one of the injuries on his person was grievous. The injuries on the person of Harinder Singh have remained unexplained on record. It has been further argued that appellant Harinder Singh has been implicated in this case falsely on account of enmity. Learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order, argued that there were as many as 21 incised wounds on the person of injured Sulakhan Singh, out of which injury No.6 was found to be dangerous to life and that injuries Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 12 were also collectively found dangerous to life, for which, according to the learned State Counsel, both the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties. I find substance in the arguments raised on behalf of appellant Jasbir Singh. Injured Sulakhan Singh (P.W.1), in his cross-examination, stated that at the time of occurrence, his son Lalli, who was serving in the Punjab Police, was posted at Police Station Fatehgarh Churian. -7- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. The village where the occurrence took place falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Fatehgarh Churian. Appellant Jasbir Singh was not related to Sulakhan Singh (injured). They were not on visiting terms with appellant Jasbir Singh. He further stated that the village of appellant Jasbir Singh was about 2-1/2 Kms away from his village. No identification parade was held by the police for the identification of Jasbir Singh. He further stated that he did not know if blood had fallen on the metalled road or not where appellant Jasbir Singh had allegedly given injuries to him. Significantly, appellant Harinder Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that he had got no relations with appellant Jasbir Singh, who was not present at the time of alleged occurrence. Still further, it appears to be improbable that when injured Sulakhan Singh had already fallen down on the ground after receiving numerous blows with knife at the hands of appellant Harinder Singh, appellant Jasbir Singh would cause injuries with knife to Sulakhan Singh. There was no rhyme or reason for appellant Jasbir Singh to inflict blows with knife to Sulakhan Singh. Appellant Jasbir Singh appears to have been falsely implicated in this case. However, insofar as case of the prosecution against appellant Harinder Singh, the same stands proved on record. In this case, presence of both Sulakhan Singh injured (P.W.1) and Ajit Singh, eye witness (P.W.2) have been admitted. For this occurrence, a cross version was put forth by Jaswinder Kaur -8- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. wife of Harinder Singh by way of filing complaint under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Code against Ajit Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Bittu son of Sulakhan Singh. This version was disbelieved by the trial court. In the said complaint (Exhibit D.X), it has been alleged that Ajit Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Bittu son of Sulakhan Singh inflicted injuries to Harinder Singh on 30.8.1996 at 8 P.M. According to the prosecution version, injuries were caused to Sulakhan Singh on the said date and time whereas according to the accused, Harinder Singh was inflicted injuries by Ajit Singh and others. In this way, the accused admitted the presence of Sulakhan Singh and Ajit Singh at the spot. No doubt there is delay in lodging the report before the police, but when the occurrence is admitted and the presence of the witnesses is admitted, the delay does not affect the veracity of the prosecution version against appellant Harinder Singh. In this case, none of the parties admitted having inflicted injuries. Neither the complainant party stated that they caused any injury on the person of Harinder Singh nor in the copy of complaint (Exhibit D.X) it was alleged that any injury was caused in defence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Harinder Singh stated that he was given injuries by Ajit Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Bittu and that Sulakhan Singh had manipulated injuries to create defence. Dr. Sukhwinder Singh (P.W.3), who had medico- legally examined Sulakhan Singh, had observed 21 incised wounds on his person. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. -9- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. On receipt of operation notes, Dr.Sukhwinder Singh had declared injury No.6 on the person of Sulakhan Singh dangerous to life. Similarly, on receipt of operation notes, this Doctor had declared that injuries Nos. 1 to 3, 9 and 12 were also collectively dangerous to life. The occurrence in this case had taken place in Village Man Khera whereas Harinder Singh (appellant) had got himself medically examined at Village Ram Dass which was about 30 Kms away from village Man Khera. Dr.Narvail Singh (D.W.2), who had medico-legally examined Harinder Singh appellant, had observed four injuries on his person out of which injury No.2 on the right forearm of Harinder Singh was declared serious in nature. He had declared injury No.2 on the person of appellant Harinder Singh as grievous without referring the same to the X-ray examination. This doctor could not explain as to why he did not ask for X-ray report when he had not probed the depth of the bone cut i.e injury No.2 on the person of Harinder Singh, which was declared grievous in nature. Dr. Narvail Singh (D.W.2) had admitted in his cross-examination that he was dealt with departmentally for making medico-legal report in favour of Harinder Singh. Thus, the four injuries, which were found on the person of Harinder Singh, have to be termed as simple in nature. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that injuries on the person of appellant Harinder Singh were manipulated; that a false medico-legal report was got issued and that no injury was caused to Harinder Singh by the complainant party. As -10- Criminal Appeal No.218-SB of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.279-SB of 1999. noticed above, 21 injuries were found on the person of Sulakhan Singh. Many of the injuries were on the vital parts of the body, such as, neck, chest and abdomen. Sulakhan Singh had to undergo operation and had to be taken to Amritsar immediately after the occurrence. The Doctor opined that Sulakhan Singh would have died if he had not been operated upon immediately. As such, there is no escape from the conclusion that the injuries suffered by Sulakhan Singh were not to create defence as alleged by appellant Harinder Singh in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal qua appellant Jasbir Singh is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua him are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, this appeal qua appellant Harinder Singh is dismissed. February 09,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE