KARNAIL SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. On the date of incident i.e. 24.09.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. deceased - Lachman Singh was allegedly dragging Jasbir Kaur, daughter of accused Mohinder Singh with the intention to outrage her modesty due to which the appellants and other accused got angry and attacked the deceased Lachman Singh. The appellants - Karnail Singh and Tarlok Singh are said to have attacked the deceased Lachman Singh with shoes, fist blows and kicks. Deceased Lachman Singh sustained as many as 26 injuries and succumbed to injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304(II) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for five years which was affirmed by the High Court.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned counsel appearing for the State and considered the impugned judgment and materials on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on seeing Jasbir Kaur being dragged by deceased Lachman Singh, it is quite natural that family and other relatives had to act in private defence. Learned counsel further submitted that on seeing Jasbir Kaur being dragged by deceased-Lachman Singh, the mob gathered and the said deceased was attacked by the mob and, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigating officer has not chosen to examine the residents of the nearby and such lapses on the part of the investigating officer vitally affects the prosecution case. The occurrence was at about 9.30 a.m. and the investigating officer reached the spot at 15 p.m. By the time, the crowd was dispersed and the investigating officer may not investigate to ascertain as who have witnessed the occurrence and, therefore, merely non-examination of the neighbours/residents surrounding the area is not vital to the prosecution case. In any case, omissions and lapses on the part of the investigating officer cannot go advantageous to the accused.