MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Singh appellant his son Gian Singh and his half brother Amar Singh stand convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 1.11.1984 as under: Gian Singh R.I. for three years and to - pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default R.I. for six months under, Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Amar Singh and Mohinder Singh R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default R.I. for six months under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. Amar Singh R.I. for two. years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default R.I. for six months under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. Gian Singh and Mohinder Singh R.I. for two years and to Mohinder Singh pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default R.I. for six months under Sections 326/ 34 Indian Penal Code. Amar- Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gain Singh R.I. for one year each Mohinder Singh under, Sections 324/34 and Gian Singh Indian Penal Code. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On 29.8.1982 at about 3/4.00. P.M. cattle of Mohinder Singh appellant strayed into the fields of Jagmit Singh P.W. He lodged a protest about the same and there was exchange of abuses between Jagmit Singh and Mohinder Singh, but respectables of the village brought, about a compromise between them. The same day at about 10.00. P.M. when Bazara Singh and Jagmit Singh P.Ws. were going back to their house from their fields, all the three appellants armed with Kirpans attacked them and caused them injuries on various parts of their bodies with their respective Kirpans. Buta Singh and Kashmir Singh P.Ws. tried to intervene, but they were also caused injuries by the appellants with their respective Kirpans. The injured were taken to Primary Health Centre, Lopoke. But since the doctor was not available there; the injured were taken to S.G.B.T. Hospital, Amritsar where Dr. Brij Bhushan Goel, P.W. 6 medically examined Hazara Singh at 5:00 A.M. on 30.8.83 and found the following injury on his person 1. Incised wound 13 cm x 3 cm underlying bone cut (further depth not probed). Across the forehead and left eye starting from the forehead, 3 cm above the right eyebrow and ending 2 cm below the left eye. Clotted blood was present. There was fresh bleeding on removing the dressing. The injury was dangerous to life caused by sharp edged weapon within duration of 24 hours. On the same day at 5.30 A.M. Dr. Goel examined Jagjit Singh injured and found the following injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 4 cm x .7 cm bone deep oblique on the forehead just above the right eyebrow. Clotted blood was present. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm. skin deep on the medial end of right clevical. Clotted blood was present. Incised wound 5 x .5 cm skin deep oblique on the front of left shoulder. Clotted blood was present. Incised wound 5 cm x .2 cm skin deep oblique on the left side of front of neck just below the lower jaw. Clotted blood was present. Incised wound 16 cm x 6 cm, depth not probed on the left side of face and neck starting just near the fabula of left ear. Clotted blood was present. He was advised X-ray of skull for injury No. 1. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were caused with a sharp edged weapon within duration of 24 hours. Injury No. 5 was declared, grievous in nature while the rest were simple in nature. On the same day at 5.45 A.M. the came doctor examined Buta Singh P.W. and found the following injury on his person: 4. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm muscle deep across the front of right upper arm just above the elbow. Clotted blood was present. The injury was simple in nature caused with a sharp - edged weapon within duration of 24 hours, Kashmir Singh P.W. was examined by the same doctor on the same day at 6.15 A.M. and -the following injuries were found on his person: 1. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm, underlying bone was cut on the dorsal aspect of base of right thumb. Clotted blood was present. 2. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm skin deep on the back of left forearm just below the elbow. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x .5 cm skin deep oblique on back on left upper arm in its middle. In his opinion, injury No. 1 was grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon within duration of 24 hours. Dr. 7.S. Bedi, Assistant Professor, P.W. 5 operated upon Hazara Singh on 30.8.1982. To the following effect is his report Upper local anaesthesia wound was examined. The frontal bone was cut obliquely from central part of forehead and crossing the left supercilliary arch cutting through the left eye ball. The left eye was completely damaged. The wound was bone deep and was communicating with intracranical cavity and frontal sinus was opened. The blood was gushing out of the sinus and intracranial cavity. Dr. Bedi also operated upon Jagmit Singh P.W. and following is his report: 1. Wound on the left side of neck examined under general anaesthesia. Angle of Mandible on left side was cut. Muscles in post triangle (left) were cut. The wound was deep to the vertebral column in postero lateral aspect. Many blood vessels were cut and fresh bleeding was present. 2. Incised wound was present on the dorsum of left hand. It was muscle deep. Underlying muscles were cut. 3. Multiple abrasions and bruises present over front of chest and right arm. On 30.8.1982 Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma PW 1, on police enquiry, declared Kashmir Singh and Buta Singh fit to make statements. Dr. Rajan Mehra, P.W. 4 on 31.8. 1982 on police enquiry, declared Hazara Singh and Jagmit Singh unfit to make statements. On receipt of the medicolegal reports of the injured PW5, A.S.I Balkar Singh P.W. 12 went to S.G.B.. Hospital, Amritsar and recorded the statement of Buta Singh PW 2, which is Exhibit PC, on the basis of which First Information Report Exhibit PC/2 was registered at Police Station, Lopoke on 30.8.1982 at 6.30 P.M. A.S.I. Balkai Singh P.W. 12 took into possession blood-stained Chaddar of Jagmit Singh, blood-stained Phatuai of Buta Singh and blood-stained shirt of Hazara Singh. He also took into possession some blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence. He also prepared rough site plan Exhibit PV. On September 6, 1982 all the three appellants were arrested by A.S.I. Balkar Singh PW 12. On the basis of their disclosure statements made on September 8, 1982, all the appellants got recovered their respective Kirpans. After due investigation, the appellants were sent up for trials.

(2.) When examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and came out, with a counter version which, in the words of. Mohinder Singh appellants, is as under: I am innocent. I was at the house of Amar Singh accused my first cousin. When I came out of his house I saw Jagmit Singh armed with a kirpan and Kashmir Singh armed, with a dang raising changars near the run heap. I prevented them from raising changars saying that there were houses nearby and they should raise changars at a place which is not inhibited. From this Jagmit Singh and Kashmir Singh abused me and I told them to hold their tongues whereupon both of them attacked me with their respective weapons. I was carrying a kirpan which I usually carry being Sikh and I used my Kirpan against them, in self-defence. Buta Singh and Hazara Singh armed with dangscame, Joined Kashmir Singh and Jagmit Singh whereas Amar Singh and Gian, Singh accused came to my rescue armed with kirpans. Buta Singh and Hazara Singh caused injuries to Gian Singh and Amar Singh and Gian Singh and Amar Singh - in self defence caused injuries to Jagmit Singh, Buta Singh and Hazara Singh with kirpans. Gian Singh lives close to the house of Amar Singh and he had come from there, whereas Amar Singh had come from his own house. In defence they examined Dr. Ashok Chawla, D. W. 1. He medically examined Mohinder Singh appellant on 30.8.1982 and found six injuries on his person. In his opinion, injury No. 1 was grievous caused within duration of 24 hours. On the same day at 2.00 P.M. Dr. Chawla medically examined Gian Singh appellant and found four injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was fracture of middle phalanx while the rest were simple in nature. At 2.20 P.M., Dr. Chawla medically examined Amar Singh and found five injuries on hill person. In his opinion will the injuries were simple in nature caused within duration of 24 hours. Apart from Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma P.W. 1, Dr. Rajan Mehra, PW 4, Dr. P.S. Bedi P.W. 5 and Dr. Brij Bhushan Goel PW 6, the prosecution examined Buta- Singh P.W. 2, Jagmit Singh P.W.3, Hazara Singh P.W. 7 and Kashmir Singh P.W. 8, the injures eye witnesses of the occurrence. Ajaib Singh P.W. 9 stated about the compromise reached at between the parties about the straying of the cattle. Ajit Singh P.W. 10 is a witness to the recovery of blood stained earth. Dr. Sandeep Kumar P.W. 11 identified the signatures of Dr. Jagjiv Sharma. A.S.I. Balkar Singh P. W. 12 investigated the case. Rishi Ram Draftsman P.W. 13 prepared the site plan Exhibit PZ. According to the medical opinion, fifteen injuries suffered by the three appellants, were, of the same duration as those of the injured P.Ws. Two injuries on the persons of the appellants were found to be grievous in nature. The prosecution has utterly failed to give any explanation for the injuries suffered by the appellants. Rather they stated in very categorical terms that none of them caused any injury to the appellants. They went of to the length of saying that no injury was received by the appellants in the alleged occurrence. All the injured P.Ws. are interested in minimising their part and-exaggerating the part played by the appellants. No independent witness is there from whom it .could be ascertained as to what was the genesis of the occurrence. The defence has given a reasonable explanation of the injuries suffered by the injured PW5. Mr. Kirpal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Lakshmi and, others v. State of Bihar1 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court were phased to hold as under: In, a murder case the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: 1. That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version; 2. That the witness who have denied, the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; and, 3. That in a case there is a defence version which. explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case: The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version, which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.

(3.) The First Information Report in, this case is delayed by twenty hours. Itis in the evidence of the PW5 that immediately after: the occurrence they went to Lopoke where the police station is located, but no effort was made to lodge the First Information Report and the prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation for the aforesaid delay in lodging the First Information Report.