PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Bhgirath Singh owned agricultural land in village Thamber in the area of Police Station, District Ambala. He transferred his agricultural land measuring 13-1/2 Bighas, some 13 years ago in the name of Jaipal Singh deceased son of his brother Bishamber Singh. Bhagirath Singh was issueless. Therefore, out of love and affection, the property was transferred through a decree of Court. The other relations of Bhagirath Singh, namely, Pawan Kumar appellant-accused son of Kanwar Pal Singh brother of the deceased and Jang Bahadur son of another brother of Bhagirath Singh obviously did not like the transfer of the land exclusively to Jaipal Singh. Incidentally there was a tube-well in the said land which was in the name of Jaipal Singh deceased. Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur claimed that it was a joint land and a joint tube well. In view of the aforesaid background on 30.9.1995, Pawan Kumar appellant and others removed the motor of the said tube well and said that they will not allow the deceased party to irrigate their land. They raised a dispute with Jai Pal Singh. Rakam Singh PW5 son of Jaipal deceased had gone to change the Naka and when returned accused Pawan Kumar was found having injuries on his left hand and on the neck. At about 7.30 p.m. when Jaipal Singh, Faquir Chand and Rakam Singh reached near the railway road Barara, where a report was to be lodged with the police, Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur appellants armed with Khuntas (heavy wooden peg) challenged the complainant deceased's son and proclaimed that they were going to teach them a lesson for getting a decree of the Court in their favour. Both the appellants inflicted injuries to Jaipal Singh deceased with the Khuntas. Pawan Kumar gave a Khunta blow on the nose of the deceased whereas Jang Bahadur gave a Khunta blow near the right ear, as a result of which Jaipal Singh fell down. While lying on the ground both the appellants inflicted Khunta blows on the face, buttock and other portions of the body of Jaipal Singh, who started bleeding from the nostrils. The nearby shopkeepers were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Rakam Singh and Faquir Chand removed the deceased to the hospital, who died there the same day.

(2.) ASI Sushil Kumar PW9 along with other police officials went to the place of occurrence and summoned Parvesh Nath PW4, a photographer, who took three photographs Ex.P1 to P3 of the dead body, the negatives of which are Ex.P4 to P6. A while Chadar stained with blood lying near the dead body was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. He prepared inquest report Ex.PK and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The Investigating Officer inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PC/1. After post-mortem the clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. It also came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that Pawan Kumar accused was admitted in Government Hospital, Mullana with injuries. Two constables were put on duty to guard him. Both Pawan Kumar and Jang Bahadur accused were arrested on 4.10.1995. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PN Pawan Kumar accused got recovered one wooden peg (Khunta) Ex.P8 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PP. Similarly, Jang Bahadur accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PO got recovered a wooden peg (khunta) Ex.P9 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ. After completion of the investigation, the accused were put to trial

(3.) AT the trial, the appellants claimed that the injuries inflicted on the person of Pawan Kumar appellants have not been explained. Pawan Kumar appellant appeared as DW3 and stated on oath that there was no partition of the land. The decree obtained was collusive and fraudulent. Jang Bahadur has filed a civil suit as special attorney. It was claimed by Pawan Kumar that Jaipal Singh deceased and his son Rakam Singh PW5 had made murderous assault on him and that they were the aggressors.