MIHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 222 and 236 of 1984. The former Revision Petition has been filed by (1) Mihan Singh, (2) Mahan Singh, (3) Nehru Singh, (4) Kaura Singh, (5) Kehar Singh son of Santa Singh while the latter Revision Petition has been filed at the instance of Bhanna Singh alias Bhan Singh son of Santa Singh against the concurrent decision of two Courts below, as per which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as follows -

(2.) THE prosecution version is to the effect that on April 6, 1981 at about 8 p.m., Baldev Singh (PW) and his brother Chamkaur Singh (P.W. 8) were present in their house talking to each other. Mihan Singh petitioner along with one Pritam Singh came in front of their house and started urinating. Baldev Singh asked Mihan Singh not to urinate at that place as the women folk were moving about. Mihan Singh, is said to have left the place raising some noise. After some time, Mihan Singh, Kehar Singh and Bhanna Singh armed with sticks and Mahan Singh, Nahru Singh and Kaura Singh armed with gandasis came to the spot, while raising lalkaras. Baldev Singh, his brother Chamkaur Singh and their father Bahadur Singh along with three ladies, namely, Bholi, Bachan Kaur and Surjit Kaur came out of their house. Mahan Singh opened the assault by giving a gandasi blow on the left elbow of Chamkaur Singh followed by another gandasi blow to him. Kaura Singh is alleged to have given a blow with the gandasi on the right wrist of Baldev Singh, while Bhanna Singh is attributed with a stick blow on the right shoulder of Baldev Singh. Kehar Singh petitioner gave a stick blow on the left eye of Bachan Kaur. Mahan Singh is said to have given a stick blow on the left wrist joint of Surjit Kaur and two more stick blows on the chest and right arm of Surjit Kaur. Nahru Singh petitioner gave a gandasi blow from its reverse side on the left shoulder of Bholi. Gurdev Singh (P.W. 7) and Ram Singh are said to have witnessed the occurrence and rescued the injured persons. The matter was reported by Baldev Singh P.W. to Assistant Sub Inspector Bant Singh who had visited the Civil Hospital, Nabha where the injured had gone for medical aid. The petitioners were prosecuted, with the result noticed above.

(3.) THE two Courts below have accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and a reappraisal of the evidence was not called for in the present Revision Petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a very vital contention which appears to have escaped notice of both the Courts below. It is submitted that in the First Information Report lodged by Baldev Singh (P.W. 3), it was specifically mentioned by him that during the occurrence the complainants had also caused some injuries to some of the petitioners by way of self -defence. However at the trial, all the witnesses made a point blank denial about any of the P.Ws having caused injuries to the injured petitioners. It is material to note here that out of the petitioners, Mihan Singh, Mahan Singh and Kehar Singh had received injuries as evidenced by the testimony of Dr. Urvinderpal Singh (D.W. 1), who had examined these petitioners on the very next morning. The medical examination revealed that Kehar Singh was a recipient of an incised wound 3 cm. x 5 cm on the occipital region of the head on the left side. Similarly, Mahan Singh had received an incised wound on the dorsum of the right hand. Mihan Singh petitioner possessed three contusions on his person of varying dimensions, i.e. 5 cm x 1 cm., 8 cm x 1.5 cm and 10 cm x 1 cm apart from two abrasions. In the wake of these injuries, it has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution witnesses had not only failed to explain the above injuries on the person of three of the petitioners but had gone to the extent of denying that these injuries were caused to them during the occurrence. Thus, they falsified the statement of Baldev Singh informant in this behalf. The argument is justified taken further that in a case like the present where both the parties had received injuries, the Courts had to be satisfied as to which of them had initiated the fight, but this had not been done. The result is that the case against the petitioners cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.