Harvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

From Crl. Rev. No.570 of 2002 [6] the x-ray examination of Khem Singh, no fracture on upper jaw or right leg was found. X-ray regarding nose was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for opinion of the Radiologist. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. They examined Constable Kamaljit Singh as DW1, Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as DW2. They also produced certain documents in their defence. It may be mentioned here that accused-petitioners were further examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After recalling of Dr.V.K.Sethi, PW3, as well as after examination of Harkirtanpaul Singh, PW5, thereafter, they closed the defence evidence. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that in the present case no blood stained clothes of the injured were taken into possession by the Investigating Agency.

Further more, no independent witness has been examined. The version given by PW1 Khem Singh is supported by none else but his own father Chanan Singh PW2. It was further submitted that non-examination of Harnek Singh on the false pretext that he was won over by the accused should be construed against the prosecution, as the accused have been denied an opportunity to cross- examine Harnek Singh. It was submitted that there is no definite opinion regarding injury No.1 being grievous. Counsel relied upon the testimony of PW5 Dr.Harkirtan Paul Singh and submitted that S.M.O. had referred injury No.1 for opinion of the Radiologist at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. This course was also suggested to Dr.V.K.Sethi PW3 who had obtained no opinion from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Thus, it was submitted that it will not be safe to hold that injury No.1 suffered by Khem Singh PW1 on his Crl. Rev. No.570 of 2002 [7] nose was grievous in nature, especially when from the clinical examination, no fracture is visible.

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State has submitted that both the Courts below have rightly held the petitioners guilty of offence. The trial Court placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of PW1 Khem Singh and his father Chanan Singh PW2. The trial Court also considered the testimony of Kamaljit Singh DW1 who brought Roznamcha and Navdeep Gupta DW2. The trial Court while rejecting the contention that injury No.1 was not grievous observed as under:- “22. The other argument raised by ld. defence counsel that Dr.V.K.Sethi (P.W.3) failed to consult the doctors of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala before giving his opinion about x-ray regarding injury No.1, again this argument is devoid of any merit. Dr.V.K.Sethi had conducted medico legal examination. He had advised X-ray examination for injuries No.1,3,4 and 5. The x-ray examination was done on 5.4.1992 by Dr.Harkirtanpaul Singh (P.W.5).

He failed to give any opinion with regard to nature of injury No.1. It appears that thereafter a request was made by the police for giving opinion with regard to injury No.1. The said request was made before the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib who then asked Station House Officer, P.S. Bassi Pathana, to get opinion from Patiala. X-ray film relating to injury No.1 was also sent to the police. It is apparent from Ex.P.W.4/G that ASI Hakikat Singh then went to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and reported to Crl. Rev. No.570 of 2002 [8] the Medical Superintendent who directed the Professor/Dr. Incharge of Radiology Department to give necessary opinion. This endorsement is dt. 22.5.1992 and thereafter, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib asked Dr.Sethi to give his opinion after consulting the doctors of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. This direction was made on 10.6.92 and it is thereafter that Dr.Sethi gave his opinion on 10.6.1992 which has been proved on file as Ex.P.W.3/D. He opined that there was fracture of nasal bone which he has described to be grievous in nature in his further examination made in the court on 9.3.2000.

In his cross examination, conducted on 27.5.2000 he has stated that he had consulted the doctors of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but no opinion was given by the said doctors. Thus no fault can be found with the opinion given by Dr.V.K.Sethi.” Both the Courts below have relied upon the testimony of Dr.V.K.Sethi who had examined the skiagrams and opined that injury No.1 was grievous. Therefore, this Court affirms these findings. Khem Singh PW1 had received 12 injures in the occurrence. Being injured, he will person to absolve the real assailants. Therefore, the argument that the blood stained clothes of Khem Singh were not taken into possession will not weaken the case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken place at 7.30 P.M. Chanan Singh PW2, father of Khem Singh PW1 was expected to be present in the village. Therefore, his presence cannot be doubted. Statement of Khem Singh PW1 was recorded in the morning of next day at 10.00 A.M. at Civil Hospital, Crl. Rev. No.570 of 2002 [9] Fatehgarh Sahib. Delay, if any, is of 15 hours. The first anxiety of the family members is to take the injured to the hospital. From the medico legal report Ex.PW3/B, it is evident that injured had reached the hospital on