HARCHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1.6.1985, at about 8 P.M. Kuldip Singh went to his house, which is on rent with the tenants, to recover the rent. When he reached there he found the three petitioners sitting in the street in front of the house. At that time Harchand Singh petitioner was armed with a Tangli, Sarabjit Singh petitioner with a Gandasi and Balwant Singh petitioner with a stick. On the lalkara raised by Harchand Singh, Sarabjit Singh gave a Gandasi blow to Kuldip Singh on his left thumb. Kuldip Singh raised alarm which attracted Pritam Singh and Karam Singh at the spot. Harchand Singh petitioner gave a Tangli blow to Kuldip which he warded off with his left hand thereby causing injury to it. Kuldip Singh fell down and thereafter Sarabjit Singh and Balwant Singh petitioners inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. He was rescued by Pritam Singh, Karam Singh and others.

(2.) KULDIP Singh, PW.2, was medico-legally examined by Dr. K.L. Kapoor, PW.1 on 1.6.1985 at 11.00 A.M. and the following injuries were found on his person :-

(3.) DESPITE that, the petitioner have come up in revision and have claimed that the total prosecution of the petitioners was a mala fide act and in fact no such occurrence took place. It was further claimed that since important question of inheritance of property was pending between the parties, therefore, they have been implicated falsely in this case. On a close scrutiny of evidence, it is apparent that there has been a delay of two days in lodging the first information report despite the fact that Kuldip Singh did not suffer any injury which could make him unconscious to disable him from making any statement. Karam Singh, the alleged eye witness has not been produced in Court in support of the prosecution version. Pritam Singh, PW3, is a close relation of Kuldip Singh. The Medical Office was not put to any clarity as to whether injury No. 1 which is the only material injury could be caused by a blunt weapon. Moreover, it was darkness at the time of occurrence and it could also have been difficult to identify the assailants. Looking to all these circumstances it appears that the story of the prosecution has not been sufficiently substantiated. Hence, the revision is allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Revision allowed.