Boota Singh vs State of Punjab

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

Boota Singh and Surinder Pal convictsappellants have filed this appeal against the judgment/order dated 1.2.1997 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which he convicted Boota Singh appellant under Section 307 IPC and accusedappellant Surinder Pal under Sections 307/34 IPC. AccusedappellantBoota Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, whereas, Surinder Pal accused appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.

Brief facts of the case are that on 6.1.1995, at about 9.00 p.m. Inder Paul Singhcomplainant, was present in his house No. 92, Green Park, Jalandhar, wherein he was jointly living with his brother Raju Singh. At the time somebody pressed the call bell from outside. Upon this, the complainant opened the outer door of the house and saw Boota Singh, son of Makhan Singh and another person standing outside the outergate with a scooter, in their hand. Both of them were known to the complainant earlier and were fully identified. Boota Singh then came inside the house, along with the complainant and asked the latter for drinking water. Boota Singh then started talking to the complainant. Suddenly, Boota Singh took out a sickle from underneath the blanket, wrapped by him and gave a blow with the same, on the person of Inderpal Singh which hit on the front of his neck. When Boota Singh attempted to give another blow, his hand was caught by Inderpal Singh. The complainant then raised a alarm, which attracted Raju Singh, younger brother of the complainant, to the spot, who was viewing television. Boota Singh accusedappellant, then ran out and then both the accused fled on the scooter. The name of the other accused, who was standing outside the house came to be known as Surinder Pal. Raju Singh then rang up Harminder Singh, brotherin law of the Inderpal Singhcomplainant, who came to the spot after some time. Thereafter the injured was removed to the Civil Hospital Jalandhar in a vehicle, where he was got admitted. The injured was medicolegally examined by the doctor on 6.1.1995 at 10.10 p.m. The Surgical Specialist then opined the injury to be grievous, in nature, which could have been dangerous to life. The statement Ex.PE of the injured was recorded on 8.1.1995, when he was declared fit to make his statement. On the basis of statement Ex.PE of the injured, an FIR Ex.PE/1 was registered. Thereafter, Dharam Pal, ASI, prepared the site plan Ex.PK, with correct marginal notes. On 10.1.1995, the accused was arrested and on 11.1.1995, on interrogation, he made a disclosure statement Ex.PH regarding the concealment of sickle and ultimately got recovered the same, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH/2. AccusedappellantSurinder Pal was arrested on 14.1.1995.

After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned under Section 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After supplying of copies of necessary documents, the accused were committed to the Court of Session for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge chargesheeted accused Boota Singh under Section 307 IPC and accused Surinder Pal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC., to which both the accusedappellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. Dr. Romesh Kumar (PW1) medicolegally examined Inderpal Singh at 10.10 p.m. on 6.1.1995 and found the following injury on his person :

"An incised wound 7.5 x 2.5 cm present on front of neck. Profused bleeding was present. Probing was not done. Advised for surgical opinion and the injury was kept under observation."

The injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The doctor also deposed that injury on the person of Inderpal Singh could be caused with the sickle shown to him in the Court. He also proved carbon copy of the MLR Ex. PA/1.

Dr. Charanjit Singh (PW2) deposed at the trial that the injured was referred to him by Dr. Romesh Kumar and on his query he declared the injury on the person of the injured as grievous in nature. This doctor also opined that this injury could be dangerous to life vide his report Ex.PB. This doctor further deposed in the trial Court that on the basis of his opinion Dr. Romesh Kumar (PW1) gave his opinion Ex.PB/1. Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW3) conducted x ray examination of Inderpal Singh and found no fracture. He gave his opinion Ex.PC on the police application Ex.PC/3. He also proved skiagrams Ex.PC/1 and Ex.PC/2. Dalip Singh Draftsman (PW4) prepared the sealed site plan Ex.PD.

Inderpal Singh injured (PW5) and Raju Singh (PW6) an eye witness, supported the case of the prosecution. Surjit Singh PW7 proved affidavit Ex.PF, Harbans Singh (PW8) deposed at the trial that on 7.1.1995, he received the medicolegal report of Inderpal Singh and on the basis thereof he went to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. He moved an application Ex.PG to seek the opinion of the doctor to the effect as to whether Inderpal Singh was fit to make statement or not. The doctor vide his report Ex.PG/1 declared Inderpal Singh unfit to make statement. He also deposed with regard to the disclosure statement Ex.PH made by the accused. He also deposed that sickle was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH/2. ASI Dharam Paul PW9 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed at the trial that on 8.1.1995 he moved an application Ex.PJ before the doctor seeking his opinion. The doctor declared Inderpal Singh fit to make statement. He recorded his statement Ex.PE on the basis whereof an FIR Ex.PE/2 was recorded. Site plan Ex.PK with correct marginal notes, was prepared by him.

Both the accusedappellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the allegations and pleaded false implication. Boota Singh accusedappellant stated that he was falsely implicated on account of the enmity of the injured with his father, whereas Surinder Pal accusedappellant stated that he was falsely implicated being a covillager of Boota Singh. The accusedappellants did not produce any evidence in their defence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced both the accusedappellants as stated above.

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is un explained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The prosecution evidence is tainted and discrepant. Raju Singh PW6 is the real brother of injured PW Inderpal Singh. He should not be believed being an interested witness. No case is proved against Surinder Pal convictappellant under Sections 307/34 IPC. His common intention with Boota Singh convictappellant to give injuries to injured Inderpal Singh, is not proved on the file. In any case, according to the learned counsel, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has been fully explained. The sworn testimony of the injured witness Inderpal Singh (PW5) has been fully corroborated by his real brother Raju Singh (PW6) whose presence at the time of occurrence is natural. A clearcut case, according to the learned State counsel, is made out against Boota Singh under Section 307 IPC and common intention of Surinder Pal with Boota Singh is amply proved on the record.

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

Inderpal Singh (PW5) who is the injured witness in this case, has deposed at the trial on oath that on 6.1.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. he was present at his house situated in Green Park, Jalandhar. His brother Raju Singh was also there. Somebody gave a call bell at his house and he noticed accused Boota Singh present there. Accused Surinder Pal was also there along with his scooter. He knew both the accused earlier to the present occurrence and he had seen both the accused persons as there was light opposite to their house. Accused Boota Singh had asked for water from him. He brought accused Boota Singh inside his house in his Drawing Room. He sat with him and started talking with him. Accused Boota Singh had wrapped a blanket around him and he took out a sickle from underneath the blanket and gave him a blow with the same which hit him under his chin. Boota Singh accused gave another blow but he avoided it by catching him from his hand. He then deposed that at that time Raju Singh was also sitting in the same room and had witnessed the whole occurrence. Raju Singh (PW6) brother of the injured, who is an eye witness, jointly lived with him in the same house at the relevant time. He corroborated the statement of Inderpal Singh (PW5). No question was put to Raju Singh (PW6) that he was not living jointly with his brother at the relevant time and that he was not present at the time of occurrence. The injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar immediately and he was examined by Doctor Romesh Kumar (PW1) at 10.00 a.m. on 6.1.1995. Dr. Charanjit Singh PW2 declared the injury on the person of the injured as grievous in nature and further opined that it could have been proved dangerous to life vide report Ex.PB. He also proved Ex.PB/1, the opinion of Dr. Romesh Kumar. Vide opinion of Dr. Romesh Kumar, Ex.PB/1, the injury was declared as grievous in nature and could be dangerous to life. PW1 Dr. Romesh Kumar stated at the trial that the injury on the person of Inderpal Singh could be caused by sickle shown to him in the Court.

On interrogation Boota Singh accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PH regarding the concealment of sickle and in pursuance of this disclosure statement he got recovered the sickle which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH/2.

The motive to cause injuries on the person of Inderpal Singh was that Inderpal Singh had demanded his share of income from Makhan Singh father of Boota Singh which he refused to give. It has come in the evidence of Inderpal Singh (PW5) when he stated at the trial that he was a permanent resident of village Shankar where he owned agricultural land. His parents had died and his land was being cultivated by Makhan Singh who was his uncle from relationship. It was given to Makhan Singh on Batai basis and he used to visit Shankar village regularly to enquire about his land. He used to ask for accounts from Makhan Singh but he never rendered the accounts to him. He had gone to village Shankar one week before the present occurrence and he had asked Makhan Singh to give his share of produce as he had not given the same for a long time. It has come in the evidence and is not denied that Boota Singh accused is the son of this Makhan Singh. Thus, the motive to give injuries to Inderpal Singh on the part of Boota Singh accused is also proved on the file. The statement of the injured Inderpal Singh (PW5) duly corroborated by the statement of Raju Singh (PW.6) and further corroborated by medical evidence and subsequent recovery of the sickle from the accused used for the commission of the crime, has amply proved on the record that Boota Singh accused inflicted the injury on the neck of Inderpal Singh which was declared grievous in nature and which could also prove to be dangerous to life.

The delay, if any, in lodging the First Information Report is fully explained on the record. Occurrence took place on 6.1.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. First Information Report was lodged on 8.1.1995 at 9.45 p.m. The injured was immediately removed to the Civil Hospital on 6.1.1995 and was medically examined at 10.10 p.m. Copy of the MLR was sent to the police on 7.1.1995 and an application Ex.PG was moved by the police on 7.1.1995 to seek the opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured was fit to make the statement. He was declared unfit by the doctor vide Report Ex.PH/1. The injured was declared fit to make statement at 4.45 p.m. on 8.1.1995 vide opinion of the doctor Ex.PJ and immediately, thereafter, the First Information Report was lodged. In such type of cases, the immediate concern of the near relations of the injured is to save his life rather than to rush to the police for report, particularly, so when the injury on the person of Inderpal Singh was on a vital part of the body i.e. the neck. Even otherwise, on the face of the direct evidence of an injured witness, delay in lodging the First Information Report pales into insignificance.

Omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to recover the blood stained clothes and the blood from the floor of the Drawing Room, could not cause any dent in the prosecution story, particularly, when the occurrence has been fixed by the statement of the injured witness himself and the investigation in the case was started on 8.1.1995. In view of the circumstances, stated above, there was every possibility of the blood etc. having been removed from the floor during the gap of two days.

The learned counsel for the appellants has further pleaded that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out as the injury caused on the person of Inderpal Singh (PW5) was only grievous and at the most it could be dangerous to life but it was not declared to be dangerous to life or that it had endangered the life of Inderpal Singh. To substantiate his argument he has cited Labh Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1979) VI Criminal Law Times 123, Karnail Singh v. Nihal Singh and others, (1978) V Criminal Law Times 411, Sahib Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1988(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 963.

In Labh Singh''s case (supra), the doctor had opined that the injuries on the person of Kaur Singh could have proved dangerous to life but the learned Judge did not attach much importance to this opinion of the doctor on the grounds (i) that the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of injury was obtained by the police after one month and 13 days, and (ii) that the medical evidence indicated that Kaur Singh injured had made improvement and was discharged as cured. The facts of Labh Singh''s case (supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case. The injured, in the case in hand, was examined on the same day by the doctor and the doctor opined without any loss of time that the injury on the person of the injured Inderpal Singh, was grievous in nature and could have been dangerous to life. There was no delay as such on the part of the police to get the opinion of the doctor and there is no improvement etc. made by the injured Inderpal Singh in that regard.

The next case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, i.e., Karnail Singh''s case (supra), it also not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case one Karnail Singh injured had filed the revisionpetition against the order dated 27.5.1974 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by which he found that he was of the opinion that there was no ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and that the case of Teja Singh injured in his opinion was also covered by the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, that Court opined after considering the case and the documents submitted therewith that there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence which was not exclusively triable by the Court of Session and as such it transferred the case for trial to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. It was in revision against that judgment that the learned Judge of this Court held on the facts of that case while dismissing the revisionpetition that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out. In that case, the lower Court had reached a conclusion objectively on the facts of that case that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out.

The learned Judge, while dismissing the revisionpetition against the order of the lower Court, appreciated the facts of that case itself, preferred the opinion of the doctor K.D. Thukral who had actually examined the injury of Teja Singh and had ignored the evidence given by Dr. Jagjit Singh, in whose opinion that injury could have been dangerous to life. So, in the circumstances of that case, the learned Judge of this Court had held that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out.

The next case i.e. Sahib Singh''s case (supra) pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants in order to prove that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out, is also not helpful to the appellants. In that case, the learned Judge while holding that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out and instead a case under Section 325 IPC was made out, held as under :

"There being no previous enmity, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident is a result of sudden quarrel. The weapon has been used from the reverse side and the medical evidence only suggest that the injuries could prove dangerous in the absence of medical treatment. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Only an offence under Section 325 IPC is established against the appellant."

This case is again of no help to the appellants.

In the case in hand, strained relations between the parties is reflected from the record itself. Inderpal Singh injured who appeared as PW5, has deposed at the trial that their land was being cultivated by Makhan Singh who was his uncle in relationship as the land was given to him on `Batai''. He deposed that he used to visit village Shankar regularly to enquire about their land and he used to ask for accounts from Makhan Singh but he never rendered the accounts to him. He has further deposed at the trial that Boota Singh accused is the son of Makhan Singh. He has specifically stated in his examinationinchief at the trial that he had gone to village Shankar one week before the present occurrence and had asked Makhan Singh to give their share of produce as he had not given the same for a long time. Makhan Singh had replied that he would come to Jalandhar and would talk to him. This evidence on the file proves the strained relationship between accused Boota Singh and the injured Inderpal Singh (PW5). Moreover, the injury was given by accused Boota Singh by a Datar on the neck of Inderpal Singh injured. Thus, all the aforesaid authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to this case.

On the other hand, it has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 305, that to prove the ingredients of an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, and it depends upon the circumstances of a case as to whether an offence under Section 307 IPC was made out or not. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is reproduced as under :

"To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances and may even in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."

In the case in hand, injured Inderpal Singh (PW5) has stated on oath at the trial that on the day of occurrence somebody gave a call bell at his house and he noticed accused Boota Singh present there. He knew him earlier. Boota Singh asked for water from him. He brought accused Boota Singh inside the house in his drawing room. He sat with him and started talking to him. Accused Boota Singh had wrapped a blanket around him and he took out a sickle from underneath the blanket and gave him a blow with the same which hit him under his chin. Accused Boota Singh gave him second blow but he avoided it by catching him from his hand. It has thus, come in the evidence that accused Boota Singh gave first injury on the neck of Inderpal Singh. He did not stop there and tried to give the second injury on the person of Inderpal Singh, but he warded it off by placing his hand before him. It has further come in the evidence of Dr. Charanjit Singh (PW2) that the injury on the neck of Inderpal Singh was grievous and could be dangerous to life.

In these circumstances and particularly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Bama Patil''s case (supra), a clearcut case under Section 307 IPC is made out against convictappellant Boota Singh. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out is repelled and the conviction of Boota Singh and the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court, is maintained.

So far as the case of other convictappellant Surinder Pal is concerned, I feel that no case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against him. The learned trial Court has convicted Surinder Pal appellant by holding that there was preconcert between both the accused to commit the crime and it was in furtherance of the common intention that they committed the crime. I do not find any such evidence on the file which could prove the common intention of Surinder Pal with Boota Singh for giving injuries to Inderpal Singh. Inderpal Singh injured (PW5) has not said anything at the trial beyond what is described here as under :

"Accused Surinder Pal now present in Court was also there along with his scooter. I had seen both the accused present on opposite to our house....... I raised raula upon which accused Boota Singh and Surinder Pal ran outside our house. They both went away on the scooter along with sickle."

To infer from this evidence on the file, it is not sufficient to hold that there was preconcern (preconcert ?) between both the accused to commit the crime. No common intention of Surinder Pal with accused Boota Singh to commit the crime is proved on the record. There is no evidence even to infer that Surinder Pal had a common intention with Boota Singh accused to inflict injuries on the person of Inderpal Singh. Boota Singh was alone in the drawing room of the injured. There is no evidence on the file that both Boota Singh and Surinder Pal had even come with the intention to inflict injuries on the person of Inderpal Singh. In these circumstances, I give the benefit of doubt to Surinder Pal convictappellant as there is no evidence of his common intention with Boota Singhappellant to inflict injuries on the person of Inderpal Singh. Surinder Pal convictappellant, is, thus, acquitted of the charges framed against him and the judgment/order dated 1.2.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, are set aside qua Surinder Pal convictappellant.

In view of my discussion made above, the appeal qua Boota Singh convict appellant is dismissed and qua Surinder Pal convictappellant is accepted.