JATINDER SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four appellants, namely, Jatinder Singh @ Babbu, Ravinder Singh, Harpal Singh and Gurbax Singh, stand convicted for offences under Ss. 307 read with Sec. 34 and 450 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The appellants have been sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years under Sec. 307 IPC coupled with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -and in default thereof, they were to further undergo RI for four months. The appellants were also sentenced to suffer RI for identical sentence upon their conviction under Sec. 450 IPC. The appellants have impugned the above said judgement and order of their conviction and sentence in the instant appeal.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that tussle was going on between the complainant and the appellants over a vacant plot of land adjoining the house of Baldev Singh (PW3). Gura Singh had put some loose earth on this plot with the intention to occupy the same. Baldev Singh went to the house of Gura Singh to complain about the same and told him to remove it. The plot in question was on a common land and was, thus, common property of the village. Gura Singh was having liquor with Ravinder Singh @ Choo when Baldev Singh went to him and asked him to remove the loose earth from the plot. Ravinder Singh then started grappling with Baldev Singh. He, however, was saved by some persons. Ravinder Singh left the place for his house hurling abuses and telling Baldev Singh that this fight would prove costly to him. Baldev Singh came back to his house and shared this incident with his wife. They went to sleep in the courtyard of their house. Around mid night, the appellants duly armed with respective weapons came to the house of Baldev Singh. An electric bulb was on in the courtyard. Appellant Ravinder Singh was armed with handle of the pump, while appellant Jatinder Singh was carrying Dater whereas appellants Harpal Singh and Gurbux Singh had dangs in their hands. They woke up. Ravinder Singh and others started inflicting injuries to him with their respective weapons. His wife, Swinder Kaur, raised alarm, which attracted Baldev Singh's mother and his son to the scene. Appellant Ravinder Singh gave a blow with handle of the pump on the left arm as well as on the left leg of Baldev Singh leading to fractures of the arms and legs. Ravinder Singh and Gurbux Singh allegedly tied hair of Baldev Singh by dividing the same into two parts and dragged him outside the courtyard. Having taken Baldev Singh to nearby pacca road, appellant Jatinder Singh gave two blows with Dater from its reverse side first on his right arm and then on the right leg. This also resulted in fracture of arm and leg. Harpal Singh used dang, hitting Baldev Singh, victim, on his right side of chest. Similarly, Gurbux Singh gave a dang blow on the back of Baldev Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by Swinder Kaur and Jarnail Singh, PWs. Having caused injuries, all the appellants left the spot with their respective weapons. Baldev Singh could not move out of the house during night on account of fear and threat. He was taken to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar on the following morning and was got admitted there. He was operated upon and remained admitted in the hospital for about 3 -4 months initially, followed by another admission for three months on a subsequent occasion. Statement of Baldev Singh, Ex.PE was recorded, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex.PF/2 was registered under various Sections. Ultimately, the appellants were tried for offences under Ss. 307, 450 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Pheruman, counsel for the appellants, has mainly confined himself to the plea that offence under Sec. 307 IPC is not made out against the appellants on the basis of evidence led and considering the seat and nature of injuries and so also the weapons of offence used. Mr. Pheruman would say that if the appellants had the intention to cause death of the victim, they were not expected to go to his house armed with dangs or handle of a pump. He also refers to a fact that one of the appellants though armed with Dater but did not use it from the sharp side and allegedly gave injuries from its reversed/blunt side. As per the counsel the opinion of the doctor, which has mainly been relied upon by the trial Court to hold the appellants guilty of an offence under Sec. 307 IPC would also not advance the case of the prosecution. Doctor has opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and finally declared after operation that these were dangerous to life. This, according to the counsel, would not be enough to bring home the offence under Sec. 307 IPC.