Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

The contents of FIR in question (Annexure P-1) read as under :- “Copy of statement of Harbans Singh son of Harchand Singh, Jat, resident of Talwandi Sabo, aged about 52 years, states that I am a resident of Talwandi Sabo and I am a agriculturist by profession. In our Dhaba Wala field, at Sada Wali Patti there is a Khal in my field since Muraba-bandi but Sukhmander Singh son of Bhag Chand got the demarcation done from the Revenue Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Department and demolished my old Khal and started saying to me that I should make the new Khal as per Nishan-dehi but I told that I, after getting the turn of water, will get the demarcation again, on which wherever I well get the khal there will the I put the khal, yesterday night at 12.16 there was my turn of water and I again reconstructed the demolished khal and yesterday evening at about 7.00, I was strengthening the sides of the khal then in the meantime Sukhmander Singh son of Bhag Chand, Jat resident of Talwandi Sabo, who was having a dang, his son Sarabjit Singh who having a Gandasa and the second son Rupinderjit Singh who was having a dang came and on coming Sukhmander Singh caught hold of my neck and Rupinderjit Singh was also caught hold of me then Sukhmander Singh said that now I have been apprehended, they will teach a lesson for making the khal again and in the meanwhile Sarabjit Singh gave the blow of his dasti gandasa on me then I, in order to save myself raised my right hand then the gandasa hit on the little finger of the right hand as a result of same, the upper part of my little finger got cut, in the meanwhile on hearing my raula, my nephew Raghubir Singh son of Hardev Singh, who was also witnessed the occurrence, saved from them. All the three persons filed with their respective weapons then my nephew Raghbubir Singh took me to the house fro the fields then my son Rupinder Singh and Raghubir Singh got me admitted where the doctors gave me first aid. Yesterday, night I was not in senses. Now, I am in senses and I have got my statement recorded. The motive Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 3 is that on the demolishing of the khal and reconstructing the same by us again. I have recorded my statement. Heard it. Action be taken against all the three persons. Sd/- Harbans Singh, attested Mukhtiar Singh, P.S. Talwandi Sabo, dated 9.7.2002.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the prosecution had submitted the cancellation report, but a complaint had been filed by the petitioner and the accused were summoned to face the trial. Thereafter, the accused were discharged. The ocular version narrated by the petitioner was duly corroborated by medical evidence and hence proceedings under Section 182 IPC cannot be initiated. After investigation of the case the Investigating Agency submitted a cancellation report and also recommended that action be taken against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC. The Area Magistrate vide order dated

12.6.2004 accepted the cancellation report and held as under (as reproduced in para 7 of the petition) :- “12.6.04 : Present : APP for the State. Argument on cancellation report heard. The complainant has made statement that he is not agreeable with the cancellation report. The accused caused injuries to him and made deadly attack. Action may be taken against accused, I have gone through file. During course of investigation, the police found to be a false case and has recommended action against complainant u/s 182 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied with the investigation. Report is hence accepted. The complainant is at liberty to file a complaint. File be sent back to concern police station for consignment. Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Announced :12.6.04 Sd/- SDJM / T. SABO” The learned trial Court discharged the private respondents vide order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-7) and in paras 10 and 11 of the impugned order the trial Court has held as under :-

10.I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for complainant, learned defence counsel and perused the file carefully. The complainant in the present case alleged that he was repairing the water channel in his fields on

8.7.2002 at about 7.00 PM and the accused persons armed with dangs, gandasas entered the fields and inflicted injuries upon his little finger. He raised hue and cry and Raghbir Singh working in the field came there and challenged the accused and accused person ran away. The accused persons in the present case were three in number and were armed with gandasas and the dangs i.e deadly weapons. Except cutting of the little finger of the right hand there is no injury on the persons of the complainant. In case the accused persons entered the fields with the intention to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant and that too with preparation i.e armed with deadly weapons, they did not left the complainant only with one blow i.e cutting the little right finger. Doctor in his evidence opined that this injury may be self suffered. As per medical record on the file the little finger was completely amputated and as per the version of the complainant this injury was caused with gandasa. Gandasa is not a small weapon. It has a big sharp blade, incase little finger was completely Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 5 amputated there must be corresponding injury upon the adjoining finger i.e ring finger, because the complete amputation of little finger was with blow given with full force. If such was the situation corresponding injury must on the adjoining ring finger. But in the present case only little finger has been amputated, no other injury is at the adjoining ring finger nor any other on the other fingers of the hand. So, in these circumstances, evidence of Doctor regarding his opinion as self suffered injury is caring more weightage. So, I find myself agree with the contentions raised by learned defence counsel.

11. Though the evidence at the time of framing of charge is not to be scrutinized minutely, but the discrepancies in the statement of PW2 and PW3 are apparent and can not be ignored at the time of consideration of charge. PW3 eye witness stated that the clothes of Harbans Singh were torn whereas complainant stated that none of the accused gave any fist blow or kick blow, only one injury was caused i.e. on the little finger, then how the clothes of complainant were torn. PW3 also stated that in the preliminary evidence that he got admitted the injured in the hospital, whereas in pre charge evidence he stated that injures was got admitted in the hospital by his son. Complainant also stated that his son accompanied in the fields on one side, but on the other hand, he stated that his son, his wife, and daughters were at home. Complainant stated that they came back from the fields on rehda and many Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 6 people met in the way. But the eye witness stated that they came back on the foot and none met them in the way. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed a revision petition and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition vide order dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) in para 7 of the said order has held as under :- “Perusal of the order of the learned lower court reveals that it is a well reasoned order. It is not disputed that in the case in hand, there is only one injury, that too on the little finger and very elaborately, the learned lower court in Paras No. 10 and 11 of the order has discussed the every aspect of the case. As per the version of the complainant, the accused persons inflicted injuries upon his little finger. The accused were three in numbers and were allegedly armed with Gandasas and dangs i.e. Deadly weapons. Except for the cutting of the little finger of the right hand, there is no injury on the person of the complainant. Obviously, if three persons had entered into the fields of the complainant with deadly weapons, as referred above, the multiple injuries are bound to be there and they would not have let the complainant only with one blow thereby cutting the little finger of the right hand. The doctor has opined that the injury may be self suffered. May be the little finger of right hand is cut, but that does not mean that the injury cannot be with a friendly hand on the right hand. Obviously, when the finger would have been cut, there should have been a corresponding mark on the adjoining ring finger, but there is Crl. Misc. No. M- 19101 of 2010 (O&M) 7 nothing of this sort on the record. Accordingly, the learned lower court in para No. 10 has not agreed with the contentions of the counsel for complainant and has rather did not find prima-facie case and discharged the accused. In Para No. 11 further discrepancies have been discussed. This Court is of the opinion that the order of discharge is a perfectly legal order and it is not liable to be interfered with.” Thus, in the complaint case it was found that the injury on the person of the petitioner could be self suffered and the accused were discharged. In the state case a cancellation report was submitted after investigation. Hence, no ground for quashing of the proceedings under Section 182 IPC is made out. Dismissed. November 17, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE