GARIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Garib Singh, aged 36 years, Mohinder Singh, aged 15 years, Bhagat Singh, aged 25 years, Ram Singh, aged 65 years, Gurdial Singh, aged 66 years, were jointly charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala for rioting and offences committed in the course of it. Garib Singh was charged separately under Sections 148 and 307 Indian Penal Code for an injury he was alleged to have given in the abdomen of Sarwan Singh (P. W. 7) with a Barchha, and for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Mohinder Singh was separately charged under Sections 148 and 324 Indian Penal Code for inflicting an incised wound on Chanan Singh (P. W. 8) with a spear, and, under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 139 Indian Penal Code, Bhagat Singh was separately charged under Sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries with a lathi on Gurdev Singh (P. W. 9) and Ralla Singh (P. W. 10) and with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 Indian Penal Code. Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh, who were also said to have been members of an unlawful assembly which caused injuries to the party of the complainant Sarwan Singh at about sunset of 24-10-1965, the date on which the festival of Diwali fell, were alleged to have only instigated their companions by giving lalkaras and saying that Sarwan Singh should not be spared. They were, therefore, charged separately only under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and for offences under Section 323, 324 and 307 Indian Penal Code with the help of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. None of the accused persons was, however, charged with any offence with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge who tried the accused persons had, after elaborately examining the prosecution and defence versions, found the prosecution case to be "shrouded in mystery as to how all the accused got together, armed variously in the house of Ram Singh and assaulted him (i.e. Sarwan Singh) all of a sudden by darting out of the house of Ram Singh". The picture thus painted by the learned Sessions Judge to convince himself of the melo-dramatic artificially of the prosectuion version did not really accord with prosecution evidence which was that, when Sarwan Singh was passing in front of the house of Ram Singh, the accused came out and surrounded him, and that Sarwan Singh thereupon raised an alaram which brought the other injured witnesses, who had tried to save him, to the scene. It was only when Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh gave, 'lalkaras' or instigated the others to attack and not to spare Sarwan Singh that the assault was alleged to have begun. It is not unlikely that even this version did not bring out the whole truth.

(3.) The defence version, put forward through Kartar Singh (D. W. 2), was that, on the Diwali night of 24-10-1965, at about 8 p. m. one Gurdev Singh (P. W. 12) son of Mangal Singh, had come with Chanan Singh (P. W. 8) the injured and Ralla Singh (P. W. 10) and Gurdev Singh Harijan and had a quarrel with Sarwan Singh (P. W. 7) injured, and with one Gurbux Singh (Parentage not given) over the ownership of a tractor whichh was parked nearby. It was stated by Kartar Singh that both sides were drunk and that Gurdev Singh son of Mangal Singh had given a barchha blow to Sarwan Singh and Gurbux Singh had given a barchha blow to Chanan Singh. It was sought to be proved by the defence, through other witnesses, that, after this incident there was a compromise between the two sides so that Gurdev Singh son of Mangal Singh, at the instance of Sarwan Singh, agreed to forgo the unpaid price of the tractor, amounting to Rs. 5,000/- and to patch up the quarrel. It was not even attempted to be explained by the defence version how an agreement could emerge so suddenly not only to patch up a quarrel in which a very serious injury was sustained by Sarwan Singh but also to involve accused persons in place of the actual assailants of Sarwan Singh and others. The suggestion, however, was that the prosecution case, according to which there was litigation between Ram Singh and Bhagat Singh accused on one side and Sarwan Singh (P. W. 7) on the other, and the intervention of Chanan Singh (P. W. 8), who had his own scores to settle with Garib Singh, explained the implication of all the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge was, we find, more mystified by certain features in the prosecution case than impressed by the very unnatural and incredible defence version. He had, therefore, acquitted all the accused persons for what he considered to be the weakness of the prosecution case, but he had also mentioned the defence version as though it could conceivably contain some truth.