Balbir Singh and Gurjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 11, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

I. Gurjit Singh appellant:

Convicted under Section

Sentence awarded

450 I.P.C.

Three years R. I. and to pay a . fine of Rs .300 /- or in default o f payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for 60 days.

307 I.P.C.

Five- years R.I. and to pay a . fine o f Rs. 500 /- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for a 3 months.

324 I.P.C.

One year H. I. ,

323 I.P.C.

Six months R. I.

II. Balbir Sinqh appellant:

450 I.P.C.

Three years R.I. and to pay a fins of Rs. 300/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for 60 days.

367/34 I.P.C.

Three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 308/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for 60 days.

374 I.P.C.

R.I for one year.

323 I.P.C.

R. I. for six months.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 8.30 P.M. on July 26, 1987 Balbir Singh appellant armed with a Kasia and Gurjit Singh appellant armed with a Gandasa entered the house of the complainant party and caused injuries to Smt. Surjit Kaur, mother of Jagsir Singh complainant, Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur, who are his sisters. At that time Balbir Singh, father of the complainant, had gone out in order to ease himself, on his return, both the accused made good their escape with their respective weapons. While leaving the spot, they threatened the complainant party not to report the matter to the Police, otherwise they would be waylaid. During night the matter was not reported the Police and the injured were not taken to the hospital. However, Balbir Singh, father of the complainant, informed the Panchayat during night. On the next morning, Smt. Surjit Kaur was taken to Civil Hospital, Rampura Phul, where she was medically examined by Dr. Satpal Gupta (P.W.1). who found the following injuries on her person:-

An incised wound measuring 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. bone deep on the frontal region of scalp, vertically placed. 1 cm. above the medial part of right eye-brow. Frontal bone was cut and crushed on margins with laceration of dura matter. Pulsation of dura matter was present. Clotted blood was found in the wound.

An incised wound 1.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. x skin deep on the left shoulder, 3 cm. medial to lateral end of clavicle. Clotted blood was present.

A reddish and tender swelling 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the posterior aspect of left fore-arm. 8 cm. above the wrist joint.

Injury No. 1 was declared or grievous and dangerous to life, while the other two injuries were declared simple in nature. The probable duration of the injuries was within 24 hours. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with a sharp-edged weapon, while injury No.3 was caused with a blunt weapon.

The Police reached the Civil Hospital, Rampura Phul, at 10 A.M. and recorded the statement of Jagsir Singh by A.S.I. Piara Singh, on the basis of which formal first information report was recorded by H.C. Bharat Singh. Earlier to that H.C. Avtar Singh moved an application (Ex. PB) to the doctor about the condition of Smt. Surjit Kaur and she was declared unfit to make the statement by the doctor. A.S.I.Piara Singh inspected the spot at the instance of Jagsir Singh complainant and took into possession the bloodstained earth. Bloodstained shirt and bloodstained Dupatta of Surjit Kaur injured were also taken into possession. A.S.I. Piara Singh prepared the rough site plan and recorded and statements of the witnesses. He also prepared the injury reports of Gurjant Kaur and Jasbir Kaur. The said injured were got medically examined on July 28, 1987 at Civil Hospital, Rampura Phul, by him.

Dr. Ujagar Singh (P.W.2) on medical examination found the following two injuries on the person of Gurjant Kaur:-

Irregular abrasion measuring 4 cm. x 1 cm. on back of left side of the chest over the interior angle of scapula. Abrasion was dark brown in colour.

Irregular abrasion 1.5 cm. x 0.25 cm. surrounded by a dark blue echymosis on left side of abdomen, 2.5 cmn. above the left iliac crest. Abrasion was dark brown in colour.

Both the injuries were declared simple in nature with probable duration of more than 24 hours. The injuries were found to have been caused with a blunt weapon.

On the same day, i.e. July 28, 1987 at 9.30 A.M., Dr. Ujagar Singh medically examined Jasbir Kaur injured and found the following two injuries on her person:-

Swelling measuring 5 cm. x 3.5 cm. on back surface of left forearm, just above the wrist joint. There was an overlying bluish green contusion, Movements of the wrist and forearm were normal.

Linear abrasion 13.5 cm. on the back of right forearm obliquely placed, starting from middle of forearm upto wrist joint. Abrasion was dark brown in colour.

Both the accused surrendered in Court and they were arrested on August 5, 1987. They got recovered their respective weapons of offence from the places of concealment, after making disclosure statements to that effect.

After completion of investigation, the accused were challenged. They were committed to the Court of Session. They were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 450, 307, 307/34, 323 and 324. Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the change and they claimed trial. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, for the said offences.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Jagsir Singh (P.W.3), Surjit Kaur (P.W.5), Jasbir Kaur (P.W.6) and Gurjant Kaur (P.W.7), besides the other formal witnesses. All the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.

The accused when examined u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, pleaded innocence and false implication. Gurjit Singh accused took up the plea of alibi. According to the accused, some unknown person entered the house of Balbir Singh at 2 or 3 a.m. in order to outrage the modesty of Harbans Kaur daughter of Balbir Singh and when Surjit Kaur P.W. noticed his presence, the said person ran away after causing injuries to Smt. Surjit Kaur. According to the accused, Gurjant Kaur and Jasbir Kaur were not present in the house and were away to village Mehraj. The accused produced Piara Singh (D.W.1) in defence. He alleged that about 1-3/4 years back at about 3 a.m., he heard noise from the house of Balbir Singh, husband of Surjit Kaur. He went to their house and he was informed by Balbir Singh that some unknown persons entered his house by scaling over the wall. He also informed that after giving injuries, those persons ran away.

The learned Additional Sessions judge, Bathinda, believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence brought on record.

The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was an unreasonable delay in lodging the first information report. According to him, the occurrence had allegedly taken place at 8.30 P.M. on July 26, 1987. However, the first information report was lodged at 11 A.M. on the next day, i.e. July 27, 1987.

The contention raised by the learned counsel is meritless. It has come on record that while fleeing from the spot, the accused had threatened the complainant party not to report the matter to the Police, otherwise, they would be waylaid. Owing to this threat hurled by the accused, the complainant party kept confined to their house during night and immediately on the day break, they took Smt. Surjit Kaur to the Civil Hospital. Rampura Phul, and she was medically examined by Dr. Satpal Gupta (P.W.1) at 7.20 A.M. on July 27, 1987. After medically examining her, a ruga was sent to the Police Station and the Police Party headed by A.S.I. Piara Singh reached the Hospital at 10 A.M., who recorded the statement of Jagsir Singh complainant, on the basis of which formal first information report was lodged at the Police Station at 11 A.M. The first anxiety of the complainant party was to save the life of Smt. Surjit Kaur and not to run after the Police to get the case registered against the accused. There is, thus, no delay in lodging the first information report, keeping in view the circumstances under which the complainant party was put after they had been threatened by the accused. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, rejected.

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out against the appellants. According to him,

Smt. Surjit Kaur injured was not provided medical aid for about 12 hours and, as such, it cannot be said that injury on the frontal region of scalp was dangerous to life. Thus, the opinion given by the doctor that injury No.1 was dangerous to life is not correct.

This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also without any force. If Smt. Surjit Kaur survived for 12 hours without medical aid, it cannot be said that no offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, is made out. Injury No. 1 was on the vital part of the body and it was an incised wound 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. x bone deep. The frontal bone was cut and crushed. The nature of injury was such that it was dangerous to life. Medical aid could not be provided other because of the intervening night and the threat extended by the accused that the complainant party would be waylaid in case they left the village during night. The essential ingredient of Section 307. Indian Penal Code, is the intention and the knowledge of the accused causing injuries and not the actual result. In the present case Gurjit Singh accused had caused injuries to Smt. Surjit Kaur with the Gandasa from its sharp-edged side on her head, which is a vital part of the body. It amply proves that he intended to cause death of Smt. Surjit Kaur. In case the survived the attack with the grace of God, it does not mean that no offence u/s 307. Indian Penal Code, is made out. Dr. Satpal Gupta (P.W.1), who medically examined Smt. Surjit Kaur, had declared that injury No.1 was dangerous to life, because the dura matter of the brain was lacerated. He denied the suggestion that the said injury on her person could be dangerous to life and not dangerous to life. In this view of the matter, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also rejected.

Further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur were not present at the sot at the time of the occurrence and the injuries found on their persons were self-suffered and not caused by Balbir Singh and Gurjit Singh accused. According to the learned counsel. In case the said injured had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, then they would have also been examined by the doctor at the time when Smt. Surjit Kaur had been examined at the Hospital.

The contention is without any force. The injuries on the persons of Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur were abrasions and swelling, which were simple in nature. They must have been left at house and Smt. Surjit Kaur, who had suffered serious injuries, was taken to the hospital for medico-legal examination on July 27, 1987. Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur were brought to the hospital by A.S.I. Piara Singh during investigation of the case on July 28, 1987, for their medical examination. The probable duration of injuries on their persons were found to be more than 24 hours. Jagsir Singh complainant tin his statement (Ex. PK) recorded on July 27, 1987 at 11 A.M., had alleged that Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur had also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries on the persons of Jasbir Kaur and Gurjant Kaur were fabricated and were not caused at the hands of the accused, is without any force.

In the light of the above discussion. I do not find any merit in this appeal so far as conviction of the appellants is concerned. Their conviction under all the counts is, thus, upheld.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the occurrence had taken place as back as July 1987. Gurjit Singh appellant was 17 years old at that time. Both the accused are father and son. They are first offenders. He prays that a lenient view may be taken so far as the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned.

I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The occurrence had taken place more than 15 years back. I am of the view that some leniency with regard to the sentence awarded to the appellants is called for. In the sentence awarded to Balbir/Singh accused to that already undergone by him. So far as the sentence awarded to Gurjit Singh appellant is concerned, I reduce the same under each count as under:-

Conviction under Section

Sentence modified/ reduced

450 I.P.C.

To undergo R. I. for one year and to Bay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of pay-of fine to undergo R. I. for 68 days.

387 I.P.C.

To undergo R.I. for three years and to Day a fine of Rs. 500/-. or in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I . for 3 months.

324 I.P.C.

To undergo R.I. for six months.

323 I.P.C.

To undergo R. I. for six months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Gurjit Singh appellant is on bail. His bail bons are cancelled. He be taken into custody to undergo the unexpired period of his sentence. Balbir Singh appellant is directed to deposit the fine imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.