BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 3.11.1991, F.I.R. No. 159 under Sections 186, 323, 324, 326, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Baghapurana against Buta Singh, Surjit Singh and Harnek Singh. According to the same, on 26.10.1991, Rajinder Kumar, a Forest Guard PW1, had left Kotla Rai Ka, at about 4.00 P.M. for patrolling the area along the Smadh Bhai drain to Sukhanand. He had covered about 4 Kilometres, when he found three persons grazing sheep and cutting branches of trees in the forest plantation. On seeing them, he went towards them and found Buta Singh armed with a Kulhari, Surjit Singh armed with a dang, both residents of Tharaj and an old person, whom he could not identify by name, also armed with a dang, present in the forest plantation. He asked them to desist from grazing sheep in the area. On hearing this, Buta Singh declared that the complainant should be taught a lesson and aimed a Kulhari blow on Rajinder Kumar, which he intercepted with his left hand and the blow hit him on his left little finger. Buta Singh gave another Kulhari blow which again hit Rajinder Kumar on the little finger. In the meantime, the other appellants started giving blows to the complainant with dangs. Rajinder Kumar raised a roula saying "killed killed", which attracted Naranjan Singh Beldar, who was working in the nearby plantation. In the meantime, certain other persons working in the nearby fields also came to the spot and the appellants ran away with their respective weapons. The motive, according to the complainant, was that he had required the appellants to desist from grazing sheep in the forest plantation and cutting the branches of the trees. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Moga, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Mohinder Pal at 6.45 P.M. The doctor found two incised injuries and 12 abrasions and bruises on various parts of his body. He declared one of the injuries to be grievous. On receipt of a wireless message regarding the admission of the complainant, HC Amarjit Singh went to Civil Hospital, Moga on 27.10.1991. He moved an application for declaring Rajinder Kumar fit to make a statement and thereafter contacted the complainant for recording his statement. The complainant told him that he would make a statement only after contacting his department and ultimately the statement was recorded on 3.11.1991 on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Ex.PF/1 was recorded. During the investigation, the appellants were produced before the Investigating Officer by Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch on 9.11.1991 and arrested in the case. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in Court against them under Sections 186, 353, 333 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) SINCE the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Ilaqa Magistrate committed the case for trial. On going through the papers sent up with the challan charges under Sections 186, 353, 333 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants. Since they pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was called upon to examine its witnesses.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, the appellants denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. According to them, they complained against Rajinder Kumar for illegally selling forest wood and, therefore, they were involved in this false case. In their defence, they examined Darshan Singh Sarpanch of village Kotla Rai Ka as DW.1.