SHAHBEG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -appellants Shahbeg Singh, Gurmej Singh and Pargat Singh (herein-after to be referred as 'the accused') faced trial under Sections 307/326/323/34 of Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Swinder Singh PW2, Puran Singh PW3, Kewal Singh PW4 and Gurdip Kaur PW5 on 5.9.1988. Consequently, they were convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as under : Shahbeg Singh convict :

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the farm house of the accused and the complainant adjoin each other and there is a passage which while passing by the side of the farm house of the complainant party approaches to the house of the accused party. A few days prior to the occurrence accused Shahbeg Singh had uprooted some pegs which the complainant had affixed in their land about which Puran Singh injured had lodged a protest with Makhan Singh, father of Shahbeg Singh and Gurmej Singh. On the next day i.e. 5.9.1988 at 7 P.M. when the complainant party was present at their own tubewell Shahbeg Singh armed with a Spear, Gurmej Singh and Pargat Singh armed with Gandasis came there. While exhorting to teach a lesson for affixing the pegs near the path-way, Gurmej Singh accused inflicted a Gandasi blow on the right leg of Swinder Singh. Kewal Singh when came at the rescue Swinder Singh then Pargat Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head. When Puran Singh rushed to rescue them, accused Shahbeg Singh inflicted 2-3 Spear blows in his abdomen. Gurdip Kaur, mother of Swinder Singh raised alarm, whereupon Gurmej Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on her head. When accused Pargat Singh was about to give a blow to his mother Gurdip Kaur, Swinder Singh advanced to save her but the accused Pargat Singh again inflicted a Gandasi blow from its reverse side on her head. Thereafter, all the accused left the place of occurrence. Consequently, they were admitted in the hospital where they were medicolegally examined on 6.9.1988. FIR Ex.PF/2 in this regard was registered on 11.9.1988. Consequently, on completion of investigation, all the accused were challaned for the aforesaid offence. When charges under Sections 307/326/323/34 IPC were framed against the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) AT the very outset, Sh. T.N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not assail the findings of the trial Court that the occurrence had taken place at the farm house of Puran Singh. The complainant party was not the aggressor whereas accused party took the lead in commission of the crime and the right of private defence is not available to them. However, he has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that no offence under Sections 307/326 IPC is made out against the accused and if they could be held guilty then only offence under Sections 324/323/34 IPC was made out. He did not dispute the fact that Dr. R.K. Gorea PW1 in his statement deposed that injuries on the person of Puran Singh were declared dangerous to life and injury No. 2 on the person of Swinder Singh was declared grievous but the opinion of Dr. R.K. Gorea is of no consequence in the absence of examination of the doctor, who had operated upon Puran Singh.