SUKHWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of the two petitioners, Sukhwant Singh had four injuries an his person, one of which was a grievous incised wound. On the other hand, Piar Singh complainant PW 1 also had four injuries out of which, one was an accused wound. The remaining injuries on both these persons were with blunt weapons. The prosecution in the instant case did not Own the injuries of Sukhwant Singh petitioner. The learned appellate Court took the view that the injuries on the person of Sukhwant Singh petitioner Nere, perhaps, self-suffered as there was ample time to have them. Whereas the injuries on Piar Singh PW 1 were detected by Dr. S.K. Gupta PW 5 at 7 p.m. on October 28, 1981, the injuries an Sukhwant Singh petitioner were detected the fallowing day, i.e., an October 29,1981, at 9.30 a.m. by Dr. Hakam Singh DW 1. However, there is no quarrel that the injuries on both these persons were just about the same duration. The point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the ( prosecution bas failed to own the injuries of, I Sukhwant Singh petitioner, is it justified in taking that step?

(2.) There was a previous background to the crime. On the preceding day of Dewali, Sukhwant Singh petitioner had allegedly torn the shirt of Karaj Singh son of Piar Singh complainant. He did so under the influence of liquor. Piar Singh had gone to the house of Sukhwant Singh petitioner to express resentment and they bad altercated on that score. This incident kept brewing in their mind. On the day of the occurrence, Piar Singh Complainant was going to the fields but on his way was accosted by Sukhwant Singh and Kulwant Singh, petitioners, both armed with takwas, and Jaswant Singh (since acquitted) armed with gandhali. Sukhwant Singh petitioner exhorted that he would teach Piar Singh a lesson for the incident of the Dewali day. It is then that he inflicted a takwa blow on the head of the Piar Singh followed by a takwas blow from the reverse side by Kulwant Singh petitioner on the victims right arm. The third and fourth gandhali blows were given by Jaswant Singh (since acquitted) on the victims right hand and forehead respectively. The injured was removed to the hospital but the matter was reported to the police on October 31, 1981 belatedly, ostensibly for the reason that the village folk had tried to intervene to effect a compromise between them. The appellant Court took the view that participation of Jaswant Singh was doubtful and the injuries caused by him were constructively shifted over to have been caused by either of the two petitioners. And similarly, the injuries on Sukhwant Singh petitioner were taken to have been self-suffered.

(3.) It is to be noticed that the grievous injury on Sukhwant Singh petitioner was a partial cut of his left little finger. It was in the middle and the underlying proximal phalanx was partially cut. Besides that, there was a lacerated wound on the right elbow joint. There was a swelling on the lower eye-lid of the left eye and a reddish contusion on the left forearm. The reddish-blue swelling on the lower eye-lid of the left eye cannot be called an injury, which could be self-suffered. Similarly, the extensive cut which could have handicapped Sukhwant Singh petitioner from carrying on his vocation, could hardly be called a self-suffered injury keeping in view of what he was supposed to answer at the trial for Piar Singhs injuries. They could, at best, be called-two grievous injuries. Thus, it is a clear case that the prosecution has not disclosed to the Court the genesis of the occurrence. Everything has been left in obscurity. Though the plea taken by Sukhwant Singh petitioner was that of right of private defence and Kulwant Singh petitioner to be not present at the scene of the occurrence, yet that plea can be kept receded in the background, for the prosecution has failed in its duty in the instant case to explain the injuries on Sukhwant Singh petitioner. Sukhwant Singh and Kulwant Singh, petitioners, are brothers. Addition of an accused to inflate the number is not un known. Apparently, something happened between Sukhwant Singh petitioner and Piar Singh complainant, the complete details of which are lacking on the record. Thus, the benefit of doubt must go to the petitioners. Accordingly they are acquitted of the charge. This petition is thus allowed. Petition allowed.