GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 6-9-1986, whereby the present appellants were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and barring Massa Singh who was sent to Reformatory School for a period of four years or till he attained the age of 18 years, whichever is less, the other appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of the appellant was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellants were also convicted under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code except Massa Singh each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs 5000/- was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of Didar Singh deceased.

(2.) IN brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19th of January, 1986, at about 11 a.m. Didar Singh was present at his tube-well. Chanchal Singh left from the house which is near his tubewell on hearing alarm, and saw Gopal Singh and Massa Singh armed with sticks, whereas Jarnail Singh armed with a Kirpan. Karnail Singh armed with a Takwa and Swinder Singh armed with a Datar raising alarm to teach a lesson to Didar Singh. All the accused then took away Didar Singh to the house of Gopal Singh, Apprehending danger to the life of Didar Singh, his son Chanchal Singh left for the police station Dera Baba Nanak. On the way he met police partylin village. The tharke and made his statement on the basis of which formal first information report was subsequently registered. Accompanied by the police Chanchal Singh PW went to the house Gopal where only Charan Kaur wife of Gopal Singh accused was present. With the help of a key provided by her lock of the room was opened and Didar Singh injured was rescued. He was sent to Civil Hospital, Dera Baba Nanak. On the way Didar Singh died. Puran Singh was also present at the time when the accused party took away Didar Singh to the house of Gopal Singh accused. The post-mortem conducted on the dead body of Didar Singh revealed presence of 10 injuries. All these injuries were caused with blunt weapons. Underneath the injuries on left arm, left and right fore-arms and lower part of. left thigh fractures were found. Most of these injuries were on hands or legs. On dissection of thorax there were fracture of 5th. 6th and 7th ribs on the left side and fracture of 7th and 8th ribs on right side, and, both lungs were also found lacerated. Death in the opinion of the, doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of said fractures and bleeding into the pleural cavity. After completion of the investigation the accused were challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and that death having taken place within 2 hours of the occurrence as opined by Dr. H. S. Sandhu, PW 1, the occurrence did not take place at 11 a.m. as deposed to by Chanchal Singh PW. The fact remains that Didar Singh was forcibly taken away by the accused inside the house of Gopal Singh later accused from where Didar Singh received injuries and was (sic). Neither Chanchal Singh nor Puran Singh PWs who had not actually seen the occurrence could depose with any degree of certainty about the time when Didar Singh received injuries at the hands of the accused. Didar Singh was forcibly taken inside the house of Gopal Singh accused at about 11 a.m and on the basis of the statement of Chanchal Singh PW recorded at about 12.10 p.m. while they were on the way to the Police Station formal first information report was completed by 2.15 p m. and it reached the Duty Magistrate at Batala at 3.45 p m. In these circumstances the first Information report, in the instant case, has been lodged with, promptitude and delay, if any, has been adequately explained by the prosecution.