Baljinder Singh @ Bittu and another vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Baljinder Singh @ Bittu and Bhupinder Singh accused-appellants (herein referred as ''the accused'') were prosecuted for

the offence under Sections 307, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC for causing injuries to Kulwinder Singh, consequently, they were convicted

and sentenced as under:-

Name of accused u/s Sentence

Baljinder Singh 326 IPC R.I. for four years and a

fine of Rs.5,000/

324 IPC R.I. for two years and a

fine of Rs.2,000/-

Bhupinder Singh 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and a

fine of Rs.4,000/

R.I. for one year and a

324/34 IPC fine of Rs.1,000/-

Since the accused were sentenced for major offences, therefore, the Court did not find any necessity to convict them u/s 323 read Criminal

Appeal No.375-SB of 2000 2 with Section 34 IPC.

In brief, the allegations are that on 19.07.1994, at about 1:30 p.m., Kulwinder Singh (PW1) was going to his tubewell for fetching the fodder in

a cart whereas his father Bachan Singh was already working in the field. When Kulwinder Singh was just 18/20 karams from his tubewell, his cart

slipped towards the paddy crop field of Natha Singh. At this accused Bhupinder Singh son of Natha Singh exhorted that he should be taught a

lesson for committing mischief and caught hold of him from his hair whereupon accused Baljinder Singh @ Bittu gave two knife blows on the front

of his right chest and below the scapular region away from the left mid-line. Accused Bhupinder Singh inflicted fist blow on the back of his right

chest. Kulwinder Singh raised alarm which attracted Bachan Singh and Sukhchain Singh, who saved him. Since Kulwinder Singh remained unfit to

make the statement upto 24.07.1994, therefore, his statement could not be recorded. Thereafter, on the application made by Investigating Officer

Mohinderpal Singh. On 25.07.1994, injured was declared fit to make the statement, therefore, his statement was recorded on the same day on the

basis of which DDR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. However, finding the injury to be dangerous to life, FIR was registered on 27.07.1994. Investigating

Officer collected the MLR of injured Kulwinder Singh, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the rough site plan and on completion of

investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

On finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charged u/s 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Appeal No.375-SB of 2000 3

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined complainant Kulwinder Singh (PW1), Bachan Singh (PW2), Dr.K.K.Sharma

(PW3), Head Constable Mohinder Singh (PW4), Rishi Ram, Naksha Nawis, Distt. Courts, Amritsar (PW5), Dr.Gopal Raj (PW6) and ASI

Mohinderpal Singh (PW7).

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false

implication in the case.

The accused Baljinder Singh filed his written statement stating therein that on 19.07.1994 at about 1:30 p.m., he was returning from the fields of

his village and on the way, Bachan Singh and his son Kulwinder Singh were going to their fields on a rehra. They turned their cattle towards the

fields of the accused. When he protested, they gave injuries on his person. He also stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Laddi and

Bhupinder Singh. In defence, the accused examined Dr.Rattanjit Singh (DW1), who had medico legally examined Baljinder Singh and found the

following injuries on his person:

An incised wound 2 x 1/2 on the left side of forehead 31/2cm above the eye brow just below the hair-line. Bleeding was present on probing

partal out on the frontal bone of the skull was found present.

Complained of pain on both the scapular region.

Complains of pain in the right knee joint.

The trial Court acquitted the accused u/s 307 IPC and convicted them under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

Even during the course of arguments, no question has been raised and no appeal has also been preferred by the complainant challenging

Criminal Appeal No.375-SB of 2000 4 the judgment that the accused were wrongly convicted under Sections 326, 324 read with Section 34

IPC.

On conspectus of the evidence, it transpires that the time, place and the manner of the occurrence stand admitted. Though, the accused has not

taken the right of private defence yet they have levelled allegations against the complainant party that they caused the injuries to the accused. The

argument raised before me is that since the accused have failed to explain the injuries on the person of Baljinder Singh, therefore, they are not fair

in their conduct and they have concealed the genesis of occurrence, therefore, they should be given benefit of doubt. In this regard, it is well settled

by now that in all cases, the injuries on the person of accused are not required to be explained by the complainant party and the minor injuries need

not be explained. In the instant case, as per Dr.Rattanjit Singh (DW1), Baljinder Singh suffered three injures, out of which two injuries are in the

shape of complaint of pain, therefore, the same in the presence of any mark of violence, could not be said to be the injuries and the third injury is a

very small injury on the left side of forehead below the hair-line. Though, the doctor has declared this injury to be grievous in nature, keeping in

view the shape and size of the injury, the time which elapsed between the injury and the medico legal report, the same could be said to have been

self suffered. Occurrence in this case took place on 19.07.1994 at 1:30 p.m. whereas Baljinder Singh got himself medico legally examined on the

same day at 6:30 p.m. on that day. It is not explained as to where he stayed for five hours after the incident and got himself admitted at 6:30 p.m.

in the Civil Hospital, Amritsar. The injury was not x-rayed before declaring the same to be grievous in nature. Even otherwise, in the absence of the

x-ray Criminal Appeal No.375-SB of 2000 5 examination, the extent of the cut could not be analyzed and no fracture was found, thus the cut on

the frontal bone of the skull of injured Baljinder Singh could be said to be superficial one. The crux of the matter is that the nature of the injury

appears to have been exaggerated by the doctor in order to help the accused party. As regards the right of private defence, admitted case of the

parties is that the complainant Kulwinder Singh was going to his field and his cart slipped towards the field of the accused then they, while inviting

the quarrel came there, attacked him and caused him simple as well as grievous injuries, therefore, the right of private defence is not available to the

accused.

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that though Baljinder Singh @ Bittu is alleged to have caused two knife blows to

complainant Kulwinder Singh but no injury has been attributed to Bhupinder Singh as he was empty handed. He never knew that Baljinder Singh

was carrying a knife in his dub, therefore, he cannot be said to have shared the common intention with Baljinder Singh. I agree to this argument to

the extent that the occurrence took place per chance when Baljinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh were in the field and Kulwinder Singh was going

towards his field on his cart. The accused had not come pre-planned as they initiated the quarrel only when the wheel of the cart slipped in the field

of the accused. If Bhupinder Singh had common intention with Baljinder Singh then he would have come armed and caused injuries to Kulwinder

Singh much less he would have given fist blows to him but no such allegation has been levelled against Bhupinder Singh that he caused any injury to

Kulwinder Singh, there fore, Bhupinder Singh cannot be said to have shared common intention with Baljinder Singh, as such Bhupinder

Criminal Appeal No.375-SB of 2000 6

Singh could be given benefit of doubt.

No other argument has been raised.

Resultantly, I partly accept this appeal, modify the judgment while setting aside the same qua Bhupinder Singh while extending him benefit of

doubt and acquit him of the charges framed against him, whereas the appeal, preferred by Baljinder Singh, is dismissed. The conviction and

sentence recorded qua him are ordered to be maintained.