ISAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INFORMANT Isam Singh lodged a first information report, on 10.06.1995, at 9:30 a.m., at PS Laksar, Haridwar, against Kulwant Singh, Billa, Gurinder Kaur, Harjeet Kaur and Premjeet Kaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 308, and 504 IPC, which was registered as case crime No. 75 of 1995. After the investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka -5) for the offense punishable under Sections 323, 308 and 504 IPC was submitted only against Billa. Subsequently, co -accused Kulwant, Gurinder Singh, Premjeet Kaur, Harjeet Kaur were summoned to face the trial in respect of the said offences, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Since the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 308/34 and 504 IPC were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As has been said above, the charge sheet was submitted only against accused Billa and rest of the accused were summoned by the trial court under Section 319 IPC.

(2.) PW 1 Isam Singh, PW2 Manoj, PW3 Sahid, PW4 Sat Kumar, PW 5 Doctor Braham Singh, PW6 Brahm Singh, PW7 SI Rambeer Singh Solanki and PW 8 Constable Lakshmi Chand were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Ratan Singh was examined in defence.

(3.) WHEN PW1 was cross -examined, he admitted that a dispute of land was going on between them. Kulwant instituted a case of assault against him, in which he was exonerated. In the cross -examination, he said that Kulwant Singh was father of Billa. One of the accused was Kulwant's wife and two accused persons were his daughters. The description of land was also enquired from PW1 in his cross -examination. Ext. Ka -2 was given with the same facts, as were described in Ext. Ka -1. In the cross -examination, he also admitted that Ext. Ka -1 and Ext. Ka -2 contained the same date i.e. 09.04.1995. PW1 also admitted that Ext Ka -1 and Ext. Ka -2 were prepared on the same day i.e. on 20.03.1995. It was also his admission that when he moved an application before the Court concerned on 20.03.1995, he did not make a mention of the application, which was addressed by him to the Deputy Superintend of Police. [It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this fact was concealed by PW 1 with ulterior motive. The Magistrate had already issued directions for registering the complaint case, when Ext. Ka -1 was moved by PW1 before the Court]. PW1 also said in the cross -examination that the quarrel took place on the boundary of his field and not in the field of Kulwant Singh. [The investigating officer prepared site plan, in which the place of occurrence was different). Whereas according to PW1, the incident took place on the boundary of his field, the investigating officer has shown that the assault took place in the field of accused Kulwant Singh. PW1 also said that he did not see that the injuries which were sustained by Kulwant Singh were caused by Billa. Many a people were working on the field when the incident took place. Shishpal Jogi and Telu appeared on the scene. Later on, PW1 came to know that the accused kept themselves concealed in their field and therefore, their presence was not noticed by any witness. He became unconscious when he was assaulted. A suggestion was put to him that on 12.03.1995, at 10:00 -11:00 a.m., he assaulted Kulwant Singh and trespassed into his field. He denied the suggestion that he inflicted blow of patal/sickle, Manoj and Brahm Singh inflicted blow of sticks on Kulwant Singh, who was examined by Medical Officer. He remained in the hospital for about 15 days.