GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, namely Gurdeep Singh, Mohinder Singh, Sodagar Singh and Jaswant Singh have come up in revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 21.12.1979 by which he confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioners recorded by the trial Magistrate under sections 326, 326/34, 324 and 324/34 I.P.C.

(2.) There was dispute about some piece of land between Gurdeep Singh petitioner on the one side and Diwan Singh PW 1 on the other side. On 23.2.1976 at 4.00 P.M. the petitioners while armed with various weapons .are alleged to have caused injuries to Diwan Singh, PW 1. Daler Singh PW2 and Chanan Singh PW 4. There were seven injuries on the person of Daler SinghT P W2 out of which injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and were declared grievous by Dr. Gurjit Singh PW 3 who medically examined him on 23.2.1976 at 11.30 P.M. Similarly two injuries were found on the person of Chanan Singh PW 4. They were simple in nature. Similarly four injuries were found on the person of Diwan Singh PW 1. These injuries were found simple in nature. Gurdeep Singh and Sodagar Singh petitioners have pleaded counter version while Mohinder Singh and Jaswant Singh petitioners have denied their participation in the occurrence. Gurdeep Singh and Sodagar Singh petitioners have taken the plea that Diwan Singh, Dater Singh and Chanan Singh PW5 along with their companion Sewa Singh have caused them injuries and Gurdeep Singh, petitioner in self-defence. The first information report was lodged by Sodagar Singh petitioner. The police investigated the case on the hasis of the first information report lodged by Sodagar Singh petitioner and challaned both the sides. Gurdeep Singh petitioner was medically examined by Dr. Gurjit Singh PW 3 on 23.2.1976 and found one oblique incised stab wound on the right forearm while Sodagar Singh petitioner was medically examined on the same date by the same doctor and as many as Suppression of genesis and the origin of eleven injuries were found on his person, out occurrence by the prosecution goes against it of which two were incised wounds. The trial Magistrate and the lower Appellate Court came to a positive finding that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the persons of Gurdeep Singh and Sodagar Singh, petitioners. The evidence of the prosecution consist of the interested witnesses who were certainly interested in minimising their own part and exaggerating the part played by the petitioners. Mr. Munishwar Pun, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar1 wherein their Lordships were pleased 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 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 witnesses 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside their conviction and sentence. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to them. Revision allowed