Buta Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

The appellant was convicted of the charge under section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. The other accused Sohan Singh was convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The incident in this case took place on 1.2.1991 at about 10.30 a.m. The incident was provoked on account of a petty matter pertaining to flowing of excess water in the agricultural land. At that time deceased Dalip Singh was draining out the excess water that had accumulated in his land. At about the same time, the appellant Buta Singh and other accused Sohan Singh arrived there. Buta Singh raised the warning to Dalip Singh that they will not allow Dalip Singh to drain off the water. Dalip Singh replied that they were nobody to restrain him. That provoked the appellants. Sohan Singh then picked up a brickbat and pelted it towards Dalip Singh. It hit on the forehead of Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh fell down. While he was thus lying, appellant Buta Singh took out his small kirpan (dagger) and hit him near the neck. The witnesses raised alarm. Thereupon both these accused fled away. Dalip Singh succumbed to these injuries at the spot itself. Thereupon, Makhan Singh, brother of Dalip Singh, who was also an eyewitness to this incident, made arrangement to guard the dead body of Dalip Singh and proceeded in the direction of police post. On way, he happened to meet the patrolling police party at the bus stand Tangra. There his report came to be recorded at about 12.30 p.m. On the basis of that offence was registered at Police Station Jandiala at 1.05 to 1.35 p.m. The special report was received by the Magistrate at about 5 p.m. on the same day.

The medical evidence shows following injuries on the person of Dalip Singh:

Reddish brown abrasion 4 cm x 25 cm on right side of forehead, 3 cm above right eye brow.

Reddish brown abrasion, 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm on the right eye brow in its middle.

Reddish brown abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the middle of forehead.

Reddish brown abrasion 0.5 cm x, 0.2. cm on the bridge of nose.

Reddish brown abrasion 0.75 cm x 0.5. cm on the nose, 1 cm below injury No. 4.

A stab wound 1 cm x .75 cm on the front of left side of neck, 1 cm above middle of clavicle and 4 cm from sternal notch.

The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of abovementioned injury No. 6, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW2 Makhan Singh (brother of the deceased) was an eyewitness to the incident and he has given the first information report. In his deposition, he has stated that he along with Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh drove in the cart near their agricultural land, where Dalip Singh was working. While they were about 20 karams (11 feet), they heard the noise as a result of some exchange of words between Dalip Singh and the accused. He further deposed regarding the assault by there two accused. His deposition in that respect is quite consistent with his first information report. In the crossexamination, he is not at all shaken. It may be mentioned that the said Makhan Singh had rushed to the police station and has also given the report within short time since the incident. In our opinion, therefore, the first information report gives sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW2 Makhan Singh. His testimony need not be doubted simply because he happened to be the brother of the deceased. His presence at the scene of the offence is quite natural, and is further consistent with his subsequent action while reporting the matter to the police station.

The other witness PW4 Darshan Singh, however, did not support the prosecution case. He testifies in respect of prosecution case to the extent that Dalip Singh sustained an injury due to the pelted brickbat by Sohan Singh, and as a result of that Dalip Singh fell on the ground. PW4 Darshan Singh, therefore, claimed that thereafter he fled away and did not witness the further incident. On finding that he was thus stating something contrary to what he has stated in his previous statement before the police, he was declared hostile to the prosecution and with the permission of the Court he was confronted with the previous statement before the police, wherein he has stated that appellant Buta Singh inflicted kirpan blow on the throat of Dalip Singh. It, therefore, clearly appears that PW4 Darshan Singh halfheartedly supported the prosecution case. The medical evidence, however, clearly establishes the stab injury on the neck. Despite the hostility shown by PW4 Darshan Singh, his testimony certainly renders support to the prosecution case to the extent that PW3 Makhan Singh was also then present at the scene of offence. It appears that PW 4 Darshan Singh happened to be in a fix, to state the truth because he is cousin of Buta Singh as well as deceased Dalip Singh. Under these circumstances we find that despite the halfhearted support by PW4 Darshan Singh, the substratum of the prosecution case as indicated by PW3 Makhan Singh is not at all shaken.

The only question then remains is as regards the nature of offence. The prosecution case in this case clearly shows that the incident was provoked on account of a quarrel over draining out the water. It appears that there was an exchange of words between the two and by and by the temper of the appellants mounted which resulted into the incident in this case.

The counsel for the appellants cited before us a case reported in Khanjan Pal v. State of U.P., 1990(2) C.L.R. 617, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a similar set of circumstances, wherein the incident was provoked on account of sudden quarrel and there was only a single injury that caused the death, their Lordships observed that the offence would be under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. He has also invited our attention to a judgment in Jawahar Lal and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 284 to substantiate the same argument. We find that in this case, as per the prosecution case, the incident was provoked on account of quarrel over draining of water. There was no previous enmity. It also appears that in the course of quarrel the appellant gave a single blow with a small kirpan and caused the fatal injury. In view of these factual facts, we find that the ratio of the abovementioned cases decided by the Supreme Court can be applied. In this case, it can be said that the act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but there lacks an intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

We, therefore, partly allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. and by converting it into one under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default rigours imprisonment for two months. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.