Dalip Singh alias Deepa vs State of Punjab

Satpal, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30th August, 1986, passed by Shri J.P. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Deepa under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and accused Bara Singh under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced Deepa accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and accused Bara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that injured Anokh Singh (P.W.6) had gone to village Harr in a marriage party of his sister''s son on 2nd December, 1984 and when he was coming back after taking the meals to Janjghar at about 2 p.m., he found accused Bara Singh and one Inder Singh (P.W.7) quarrelling. When the injured tried to intervene, accused Bara Singh is alleged to have exhorted his coaccused Deepa to give a knife blow to him, and thereafter Deepa accused gave a knife blow hitting him on the left side of his abdomen.

Prosecution besides the injured also examined the other eyewitness Inder Singh (P.W.7), Om Parkash (P.W.1), Dr. Ravi Mahajan (P.W.2), Shakti Chand, (P.W.3) Dr. Sudershan Kumar (P.W.4), Dr. Satnam Singh (P.W.5) and the Investigating Officer, A.S.I. Gurmail Singh (P.W.8) to prove the case. The prosecution also tendered in evidence the affidavits Exhibits P.W.9 and P.W.10 of Constable Harbans Singh and MHC Gian Singh. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove.

This case was shown as No. 1 in the cause list of cases, fixed for final hearing today. The case was called twice but none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the State, was present and with his able assistance, I have gone through the grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment and the records of the case.

From the impugned judgment, I find that the same is based on legal evidence on record, and there is no infirmity in the judgment. The points raised by the defence counsel before the learned trial Judge were that there was a delay in recording of the First Information Report, that no case was made out under Sections 307/34, Indian Penal Code as there was no previous enmity between the parties, that blood stained earth was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and that there were discrepancies in relation to the exact words spoken by the two eyewitnesses regarding exhorting coaccused Deepa by Bara Singh that he should inflict knife injuries on the injured.

From the records, I do not find any substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the accused. As stated in the impugned judgment, when the injured was taken to the Hospital, he was not in a fit position to give a statement and this fact has been duly proved by the doctor concerned. It is further evident from the record that when the injured was fit to give the statement, his statement was recorded by the Police and the First Information Report was registered immediately thereafter. There is also no substance in the contention that the blood stained earth was not taken into possession. From the facts, it is clear that the case was registered only after the injured was in a position to give his statement, and the injured got injuries at a place near the Janjghar and there was not the possibility of blood stained earth being still available after the case was registered. I also do not find any discrepancy regarding exhorting by accused Bara Singh as two eyewitnesses have stated to the same effect that accused Bara Singh had exhorted his coaccused Deepa to cause injuries to the injured with knife. From these facts, it is further clear that the common intention to inflict knife injuries came into existence at the spot because of the exhortation made by Bara Singh accused. As held in Yallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, JT 1994(1) SC 5, the common intention can come into operation at the spot, particularly in this case because Bara Singh accused knew that accused Deepa was carrying a knife and on his asking, accused Deepa gave injuries to the injured.

As regards the quantum of sentence, I find that the learned trial Court has itself taken a lenient view.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed.