Arjan Singh and Others vs The State

P.D. Sharma, J.—Nar Singh, his four sons,. Kartar Singh, Avtar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Haripal Singh, and two cousins, Tek Singh and Arjan Singh, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 325 and 324, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Avtar Singh was separately charged under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and so was Mukhtiar Singh u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Nar Singh, Avtar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Tek Singh were acquitted. Kartar Singh, Haripal Singh and Arjan Singh were convicted u/s 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each awarded five years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6ne year. Kartar Singh was further convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and given one year''s rigorous imprisonment. Haripal Singh and Arjan Singh as well were convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded eight months'' rigorous imprisonment each. Rs. 2,000/- out of the fine, if and when realised, were to be paid to the heirs under Hindu law of Karam Singh deceased. Hardev Singh (P.W.) injured Was also to get Rs. l.OOO/- out of the aforesaid amount by way of compensation. The three convicts appeal The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal of the other four accused.

Karam Singh deceased and Ajaib Singh (P. W.) are brothers. Nazir Singh (P. W.) is their first cousin. Hardev Singh and Jit Singh (P. Ws.) are grandsons of their uncles. The injured persons and all the seven accused who were tried are collaterals as well.

The prosecution story is that Nar Singh accused (since acquitted) for a long time had been elected as Sarpanch of the village Pan-chayat Daula During the last election Ajaib Singh (P. W.), however, expressed his intention of contesting the election and required Nar Singh to withdraw in his favour but the request was turned down. The two contested the election and Ajaib Singh came out as victorious. In the course of Samiti election Nar Singh wanted Ajaib Singh to lend support to his relation Gurdial Singh of village Channu but Ajaib Singh instead helped Malkiat Singh of village Lambi who ultimately won and this caused ill-will between the two branches of the same family.

On 31st August. 1961, at about 6-00 P. M. Ajaib Singh, Hardev Singh injured and Angrez Singh (P. Ws) were together in front of the house of the former. They saw all the accused running towards the village, pond. Haripal Singh and Arjan Singh of them were carrying sticks while the rest were armed with gandasas. The three prosecution witnesses out of curiosity followed the seven accused and found them surrounding Nazir Singh (P, W.) and Karam Singh deceased on the southern bank of the pond. Nar Singh gave a gandusa blow on the upper arm of Nazir Singh and so did Avtar Singh accused on his head from the blunt side of his gandasa. Kartar Singh and Avtar Singh accused as well hit Karam Singh deceased with the gandasas on the left lee and head region as a result of which he collapsed on the ground. Arjan Singh gave him a dang blow. Jit Singh reached the spot with a kasauli in his hand. He along with Hardev Singh and Ajaib Singh (P. Ws ) tried to save Nazir Singh and Karam Singh but were injured by Tek Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Haripal Singh. Jit Singh (P. W.) in self-defence gave a kasauli blow on the right shoulder of Kartar Singh. Angrez Singh watched the occurrence from a distance. His alarm brought Ganni Singh, Pilla Singh and Ghamdoor Singh (P. Ws.) on the vennue and their presence scared away the culprits.

Angrez Singh after rendering first aid to the injured persons carried them in a trolly to the Giddarbaha hospital. Dr. Narula examined Karam Singh, Hardev Singh, Nazir Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh and observed three, one, two, six and three injuries on their bodies respectively, five out of which were incised wounds. The doctor sent memorandum Exhibit P. E. to the police station, Giddarbaha, indicating that condition of Hardev Singh (P. W.) was precarious which was received by Girdhari Lal Sub-Inspector of Police station Kot Bhai, who while on patrol duty happened to be there. He atonce proceeded to the hospital and recorded statement of Ajaib Singh Exhibit P. O. which was sent per bearer to police station Limbi. Gurdip Singh, Station House Officer, Police station Lambi, recorded the first information report and reached the spot on the 1st September, 1961, and collected bloodstained earth therefrom. The accused wire arrested on 2nd September, 1961.

Karam Singh died on 6th September, 1961, at about 8-30 a.m. Dr. R. N, Narula (P. W.) performed the post-mortem examination on his body. He found two wounds on the head and one on the upper part of left chin. Scalp and skull were fractured almost vertical 5" long on left parietal and temporal bones extending into left middle fossa, of base of skull for 2" on the petrous portion of left temporal bone. Brain was lacerated on left parietal lobe top and temporal lobe at the bottom. It was congested specially on the surface of parietal and occipital lobes. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and compression of brain caused by fracture of vault of skull on left side and left middle fosa in the base of skull on account of external head injury caused by a moderately heavy sharp cutting weapon.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Nar Singh, Tek Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Avtar Singh accused (since acquitted) stated that they were not present at the time of occurrence, Kartar Singh accused-Appellant explained the incident in the following terms:-

The actual facts are that at about 8 or 9 P.M. on the date of the occurrence I heard some raula when I washed myself at the village pond subsequent to relieving nature. The raula was emanating from the nauhra of Lal Singh. I went to that nauhra. I saw Haripal Singh. Tek Singh and Billu Singh sons of Lal Singh, the first armed with a dang and the other two with a gandasa each. These three persons were occasioning blows to Karam Singh. When I reached the nauhra of Lal Singh, Nazir Singh and Ajaib singh also came there. The three sons of Lal Singh occasioned blows to these three P. Ws. as well. I interceded with a request to the assailants to spare their victims. I also raised raula. Jit Singh and Hardev Singh appeared on the scene on hearing my raula. Jit Singh was armed with a kasauli. Jit Singh and Hardev Singh began to fight with the three sons of Lal Singh. I made an attempt to disengage them. Jit Singh occasioned me a Kasauli blow on the score that his uncles had been assaulted and I was dissuading him from avenging that occurrence. Haripal Singh had dang with him and I was occasioned another blow by Haripal Singh with that dang. In the meantime, my brother Haripal Singh and my uncle Arjan Singh reached there from the side of the lands on hearing the raula. They both were armed with a dang each. They used their dangs because they had seen Jit Singh giving me a kasauli blow They occasioned two soti blows to Jit Singh, one each, but this they did to save me. My brother Haripal Singh and uncle Arjan Singh raised rauala as well and asked the''persons in conflict to stop the fighting. other persons from the village also assembled and I then ran away from the place and went to my house. I cannot - say what happened thereafter.

Haripal Singh and Arjan Singh accused-Appellants admitted that the complainant party received injuries in the circumstances indicated by Kartar Singh.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the defence version as a concoction in view of the fact that none of the sons of Lal Singh was examined as a defence witness, that they had no enmity against Kartar Singh accused-Appellant and so were not expected to injure him and that the blood-stained earth was recovered from a spot near the pond and not from the nauhra of the said Lal Singh.

Ajaib Singh (P. W. 1), Nazir Singh (P. W. 3), Angrez Singh (P. W. 4), Jit Singh (P. W. 6), Hardev Singh (P. W. 7) and Ganni Singh (P. W. 8), eye-witnesses, were examined at the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Angrez Singh and Ganni Singh (P. Ws.) did not see the occurrence and so their testimony carried no probative value. According to him if Angrez Singh also had been near the spot he would have joined the fight and suffered injuries and absence of both these circumstances clearly pointed out that he was not present when the complainant party received the injuries. Ganni Singh (P. W. 8) on his own showing went to the spot when the culprits had left and it being dark he could not have identified them from a distance. Ajaib Singh, Hardev Singh and Nazir Singh (P. Ws.) while giving details of the incident confirmed the prosecution story. Jit Singh (P. W. c), however, said that Avtar Singh accused gave one blow only to Nazir Singh and similarly Mukhtiar Singh accused also caused one injury to Karam Singh. The prosecution story is that Avtar Singh give the major blow to Karam Singh fand that Murktiar Singh caused injuries to Ajaib Singh the learned Additional Sessions Judge after carefully going through the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the first information report was lodged after consultation and was delayed, that all the male members of the family of Nar Singh accused had been involved in the case, that there were discrepancies worthy of note in the statements of Jit Singh (P. W 6) on one side and the other injured prosecution witnesses on the other side, that only three out of the fifteen injuries caused to the complainant party were incised wounds, and that the prosecution witnesses were all closer related and inimically disposed towards the accused. He, therefore, thought it prudent to convict Kartar Singh, Haripal Singh and Arjan Singh accused-Appellants who had admitted their presence at the time of the fight between the parties. The learned Counsel for the accused-Appellants contended that the case of the accused-Appellants was not in any way distinguishable from the case of the four accused who had been acquitted. In his opinion the trial Judge was not justified in relying on the accused-Appellants'' admission that they were present at the time the deceased and injured prosecution witnesses came about the injuries and particularly out of context. He went on to argue that in law statements of the accused recorded u/s 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to fill in the lacuna in the prosecution evidence and thus to corroborate the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses. I am inclined to agree with him. Kartar Singh accused-Appellant admitted that he was present when the deceased and the four prosecution witnesses received the injuries but according to him the circumstances in which the injuries were caused were totally different from the prosecution version of the affair. When his account of the occurrence had been disbelieved it would indeed be not safe to say that he was present when the fight took place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. In this connection reference may be made to the case, Narain Singh v. The State of Punjab Cr. A. no 2 .8 of 1959, decided by the Supreme Court on 21st August,1962, with advantage.

The reasons which prevailed with the trial Judge for acquitting the other four accused were very much present in the case of the three accused Appellants also. The acquittal of the four accused and conviction of the accused-Appellants had led to irreconcilable situation. Nar Singh and Avtar Singh accused who are said to have opened the attack on Nazir Singh have been acquitted. Avtar Singh, the alleged main assailant of Karam Singh deceased, also got free. Tek Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, who were responsible for causing injuries to Ajaib Singh, as well have been acquitted. Similarly Mukhtiar Singh, the sole assailant of Hardev Singh, also has been set free. The part assigned to the three accused-Appellants in the occurrence was not of a major character. The trial Judge perhaps omitted to note the effect of acquittal of the four accused on the main fabric of the prosecution story. When the number and identity of the culprits could not be ascertained with any amount of certainty and also the part played by all or anyone of them, these three accused-Appellants as well should have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the accused Appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.