Banta Singh and another vs The State Of Punjab

K.S. Tiwana, J.—This revision is directed against the dismissal of the appeal of the Petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar against their conviction under Sections 452,324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for trespassing into the house of Hazara Singh (PW 5) in village Jallupur Khera on October 4, 1971 at about 9 P.M., and causing injuries to Mohinder singh, Hazara Singh and Shrimati Dhan Kaur, P Ws.

The story of the prosecution is that on October 4, 1971 Hazara Singh, Mohinder Singh and Smt. Dhan Kaur, P Ws were present inside their house. Gurnam Singh, Petitioner armed with a kirpan, raising catcalls under the influence of liquor, came in front of their house and abused them. Mohinder Singh tried to dissuade them from their rowdy conduct, but he and the other Petitioners variously armed trespassed into the house. Banta Singh caused injury with his kirpan on the left thumb of Mohinder Singh. Gurnarn Singh gave injury with his kirpan ON THE LITTLE FINGER of the left hand of Mohinder Singh. Rattan Singh gave an injury to Mohinder Singh on the right ear with his spear in a thrusting manner. Mohinder Singh fell down. Dhan Kaur who tried to intervene was given injury by Rattan Singh with the stick of the spear. Banta Singh gave injury with his kirpan thrustwise on the right fore-arm. On the intervention of Hazara Singh, he was given a kirpan blow by Gurnam Singh on his right forearm. All the accused then caused more injuries to Hazara Singh and Dhun Kaur Mohinder Singh and Hazara Singh also gave injuries to the Petitioners in their self-defence hereafter the Petitioners left the place of occurrence alongwith their weapons.

The injured P Ws were taken to Civil Hospital, Baba Bakala,. Dr. Piara Singh found one bluish red contusion on the right scapular region of Dhan Kaur. The injury was simple.

Dr. Hardial Singh, on medico-legal examination of Mohinder Singh, found an incised wound between the thumb and index finger of his left hand; and incised wound on the anterior side of the little finger of his left hand; an incised wound on the anterior side of the ring finger of his left hand; a stab wound on the right side of his face; a bruise on the left side of the back and an abrasion on the anterior side of his left arm above the elbow joint.

Hazara Singh was found to have a bruise on the anterior side of the right thigh above knee joint; an abrasion on the back of his right fore-arm and a stab wound on the lateral side of right arm.

Rattan Singh, Petitioner was found to have an incised wound on the lateral side of index finger of his left hand; an abrasion on the left lateral side of index finger of left hand and an abrasion on the lateral side of the right thigh.

Kuldip Singh (PW3) on medico-legal examination of Banta Singh, noted the following injuries on his person:

1) An incised wound 4 cm. x 3/4 cm on the dorsum of the left hand in transverse direction near the base of the thumb and index finger.

2) An abrasion 1cm. x 1/2 cm. on the front of Tight chest 3 cm. from the sternal angle.

3) An incised wound 1cm. x 1/2 cm. on the left side of forehead just above the eye brow.

4) A reddish contusion 6 cm. x 1 cm. on the lateral and left side of chest in its middle with a contused wound near its interior and.

6) An abrasion lxl/2 cm. in right scapullar region,

An abrasion 2 x 1/2 cm. on the outer and middle of left leg.

A. reddish contusion 5x3 cm. with abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the back of the right knee joint.

A contnsed wound 2 x 1 cm, bone deep on the top of head.

The incised wounds on the persons of the injured were the result of sharp-edged weapons and the punctured wounds with the sharp-edged pointed weapon and the other injuries were with blunt weapon.

On receipt of intimation from the Doctor, Assistant Sub-Inspector Nand Lal of Police Station, Beas went to Civil Hospital at Baba Bakala and recorded the statement Mohinder Singh on the basis of which the formal first Information Report was recorded.

At the trial, Mohinder Singh, Hazara Singh and Dhan Kaur, P Ws narrated the story, as has been recounted in the earlier part of this judgment; the doctors proved the medico-legal reports; Assistant Sub-Inspector Nand Lal investigated the case and the rest of the witnesses examined were formal in nature.

The Petitioners, when examined u/s 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898), denied the case against them as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Banta Singh and Rattan Singh stated that Mohinder Singh and Hazara Singh came in front of their house at which their dog barked. The prosecution witnesses objected to it and abused them. Mohinder Singh was armed with a kirpan and Hazara Singh with a stick. Mohinder Singh opened the attack and caused them injuries. In their self-defence they also inflicted injuries to the complainant-party. Sohan Singh, DW was examined to corporate the defenee version,

The learned trial Court'' finding in favour with the prosecition(sic), convicted the Petitioners, Banta Singh was convicted u/s 324; of the Indian Peaal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for causing injuries to Mohinder Singh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. Banta Singh Petitioner was convicted u/s 324 read with Section 34 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Similarly Gurnam Singh was convicted u/s 324 read with Section 34 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Banta Singh and Gurnam Singh were also convicted u/s 324 read with Section 34 of the Code for causing injuries to Mohinder Singh and Hazara Singh and sentenced to six months rigorous imprionment each Banta Singh and Gurnam Singh were convicted u/s 452 of the Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently. Rattan Singh, too, was convicted u/s s 452 and 324 of the Code, but on account of his old age, he was given the benefit of probation. He was released on probation on his furnishing a bond with one surety, each in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- to keep peace for a period of 11/2 years. The appeal of the Petitioners against their conviction did not meet with success.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and gone through the judgments under revision.

Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding on facts, but the appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution by both the Courts cannot be accepted. Although Mohinder Singh, Hazara Singh and Dhan Kaur, P Ws, have injuries on their persons yet they have made so many condealments of facts and improvements, that their evidence does not inspire confidence for placing reliance. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioners had trespassed into the house of Hazara Singh to cause them injuries. There is no accusation of any serious emuity(sic) between the parties prior to the occurrence which could prompt the Petitioners to take such a step. The story of trespass is not convincing at all It was the positive case of the prosecution waich was disbelieved by the learned trial Magistrate and accepted by the first appellate Court that Hazara Singh (PW5). who is a gun licensee, was sitting on a cot in the courtyard of the house with his gun by his side, which was taken away by the Petitioners. The Petitioners, according to the prosecution witnesses, had created a commotion by their conduct infront of the house which led Mohinder Singh, PW. to go outside for dissuading them from that conduct. In that situation, when Hazara Singh who was armed with a gun and the Petitioners who were bent upon creating mischief, could not dare to enter the house. In case they entered the house, they could not be allowed by Hazara Singh armed with a gun, to cause injuries to the prosecution witnesses. This shows that the Petitioners had not entered the courtyard of the house of Haza a Singh to cause injuries.

The prosecution witnesses, in order to make their case weighty, attributed in the First information Report and in their statements in Court that the Petitioners had removed the gun of Hazara Singh at the time of the incident. In these circumstances in which Hazara Singh was sitting, he could not have permitted first the entry, of the Petitioners in the house and then the removal of his gun from there. Moreover, he could not have slung such a formidable weapon instead of beating the attack of the Petitioners. The witnesses examined by the prosecution about the recovery of the gun did not support the prosecution story at the trial The observations of the learned Magistrate are indicative of the fact that the prosecution had made a false accusation against the Petitioners about the removal of the gun. On examining the asseriion on this aspect of the prosecution case, I am in agreement with the learned trial court that this part of the story was introduced falsely to creat a charge against the Petitioners This part of the story was not a casual introduction in the prosecution case, but it was after long deliberations and consultations that the First information Report was lodged after about 24 hours of the occurrence. The eye-witnesses, therefore, are guilty of introducting false evidence in their statements regarding the place of occurrence and the theft of the gun.

Banta Singh had 8 injuries out of which two were the result of sharp edged weapons and Rattan Singh had one incised wound. Mohinder Singh (PW4) has not explained the injuries on the persons of the Petitioners. He has stated that Hazara Singh was armed with a Kulhari (axe) and used it against the Petitioners. He himself was armed with a Sotta(sic). Hazara Singh who was the author of the incited wounds, did not toe to the line of his son. He stated that he was armed with a prani (a smell O, wooden stick used for goading the cattle:. He, bring the person responsible for causing injuries on the persons of the Petitioners, could not be under any mistake about the weapon wielded by him Even if his statement had been recorded after a long time, he would not have committed a mistake about his weapon especially when he was very sure of the weapon with the Petitioners and the injuries caused by them. He maticulously describes(sic) the details of each injury on the prosecution side, and his account tallies with that of the other witnesies, but faltered about the weapon used by him. In these circumstances, he cannot be given even the benefit of a week memory as was done by the appellate Court. The prosecution witnesses have deliberately made concealment of the part played by them at the time of the occurrence and the weapons used against the Petitioners. When the prosecution witnesses introduced so much of falsehood in their statements, it is difficult to dissect the whole of their testimony and find out as to which portion of their version or testimoony may be truthful). The fact of their having injuries on their persons doss not improve matters in favour or the prosecution, because injuries only are a fact which establishes the presence of a witness at the time of occurrence It does not give a gurantee that the injured witness is making a truthfull statement.

The argument that the whole statements of the prosecution witnesses, who are injured should be accepted, is not convincing. The Court has to guard against the danger of false version being put forward by the injured witnesies by accepting the test of injuries on their persons.

On a careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, I find that the version of the injured witnesses is not such which can be accepted.

In view of the forgoing discussion, the revision is accepted. The order of the appellate Court is set aside and the Petitioners are acquitted of the charges.