Daljit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.1987, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who convicted the appellant u/s 307, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo R.I. for three months. It was further ordered by the learned trial court that the fine, if realised, shall go to Ranjit Singh, injured, by way of compensation.

The prosecution case was that on 20.7.1986 at about 10 PM, Constable Ranjit Singh, HC Surjit Singh and HC Balwinder Singh were sleeping on their cots between Barracks No. 1 and 2 in Police Lines, Patiala and the lights of the barrack were on. Accused Daljit Singh, who was also posted as Head Constable, came armed with an iron handle of a handpump and gave two blows in quick succession on the forehead of Ranjit Singh, causing damage to the left eye and his nose. HC Surjit Singh and HC Balwinder Singh, besides some CRPFofficials lying on their nearby cots, woke up on hearing the alarm. Accused fled towards mess and could not be caught. An information was given to the Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala, on telephone. The injured was removed in a truck and on the way S.I. Tarsem Singh of Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala, joined them. On reaching the hospital, SI Tarsem Singh made an application for the medicolegal examination of Ranjit Singh. Since, HC Ranjit Singh was not fit to make the statement, SI Tarsem Singh recorded the statement of HC Surjit Singh, on the basis of which the present case was registered u/s 307, IPC. I.O. visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan besides recording the statements of eyewitnesses. The accused was arrested on 22.7.1986 and the weapon of offence was recovered on 23.7.1986 in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. I.O. also took into possession the cot on which Ranjit Singh was lying along with the bed sheet and pillow on 21.7.1986. The blood stained shirt and pajama of Ranjit Singh, injured, were also handed over to HC Surjit Singh by the doctor on 25.7.1986 which were taken into possession by SI Tarsem Singh after preparing parcels. Statement of Ranjit Singh, injured was recorded on 5.8.1986. On 1.10.1986 the doctor opined that the injuries of Ranjit Singh were dangerous to life.

The motive for the crime is that the injured and the accused were residing in one room of Barrack No. 1 and on the day of occurrence, both of them had taken meals in their room at 7.30 p.m. alongwith a guest of the accused. While taking meals, Dal spilt on the ground through negligence of the injured and on this alteration took place between the injured and the accused. The accused challenged that he would see Ranjit Singh.

On the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate who committed the appellant to the court of sessions, which framed change u/s 307, IPC against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as Dr. Rajinderpal Gupta, PW1, Dr. Anupam Batta, PW2, Dr. Kuldip Singh, PW3, HC Surjit Singh, PW4, Indresh Khanna, PW5, Ranjit Singh, PW6, Dr. Ravinder Nath Bhatnagar, PW7, HC Surinder Singh, PW8, SI Tarsem Singh, PW9 and SI Teja Singh, PW10. ASI Ram Singh, Constable Ajit Singh, Constable Ajaib Singh and HC Balwinder Singh were given up as unnecessary.

On the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. Accused denied those circumstances and his plea was that Ranjit Singh injured was sharing his room under the directions was senior police officers. He started misusing the room by bringing lady constables to which the accused objected. Further the accused pleaded that the injured felt offended and started sleeping sometimes in the room of HC Surjit Singh and sometimes in the room of HC Balwinder Singh. As per further plea of the accused, all the three formed a party and continued their misdeeds and implicated the accused falsely on suspicion.

In defence, the appellant did not examine any witness.

The learned trial Court relied the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal, which I am disposing of with the assistance rendered by Mr. J.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab. Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the appellant. I have also gone through the record of the case.

In this case, Ranjit Singh is an injured witness, who has fully corroborated the allegations of the prosecution. He being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement has been further corroborated by the statement of HC Surjit Singh.

The plea of the appellant is that the occurrence had taken place at about 10 p.m. when the injured was sleeping on the cot and the eye witness was also sleeping in a nearby cot and, in these circumstances, they could not see who was the actual culprit. Further plea of the appellant is that, admittedly, he was not arrested from the spot and, in these circumstances, there is every chance of false implication in this case.

In this case two blows were allegedly given by the assailant in quick succession and, in these circumstances, it is always open to the injured to see as to who was his assailant as soon as he received the first below. It hardly takes a fraction of a second to identify the assailant if he is already known to the injured. The natural reaction of the injured on receipt of the first blow would be either to cry in pain or to raise an alarm or to make some commotion, which will easily attract the persons who are lying on the nearby bed/cot. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the occurrence the Barrack lights were on. Resultantly, in this case, there could be no difficulty on the part of Ranjit Singh, injured or HC Surjit Singh, PW, to identify the assailant. Also there is not an iota of suggestion to any of the PWs that somebody else had caused the injuries to Ranjit Singh. It is a case of single accused and the chances of false implication are very remote. There was a motive in this case when the injured and the accused earlier quarrelled with each other. They were room mates and there was every chance that they might have taken the meals together and accidentally the Dal fell on the ground which must have irritated the appellant because the said act was committed by the injured in the presence of the guest of the appellant. It is just possible that sufficient Dal may not have remained in the bowl for the benefit of the guest of the appellant. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that sufficient motive has not been established by the prosecution, it is not fatal because it is well settled that sometimes the offences are committed for weak motives and sometimes for no motive because motive is always locked in the heard of the assailant as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in several judgments. There is no cogent explanation for Ranjit Singh to implicate the present appellant. The statement of Ranjit Singh is fully corroborated from the medical evidence as well. The doctor has noticed three lacerated wounds on the persons of Ranjit Singh. The same are quoted as below :

"1. Lacerated wound 6 cms. x 1/2 cm x depth to be probed by surgeon on the forehead 4 cms above the right eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray and Surgeon''s observations were advised.

Lacerated wound 6 cms x 1/2 cm on the right eyebrow depth to be probed by the surgeon. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray and Surgeon''s observations were advised.

Lacerated wound 61/2 cms x 1 cm depth to be probed by Surgeon. The injury was from medial end of left eye upto Injury No. 2 Fresh bleeding was present. Xray and Surgeon''s observations were advised."

These injuries could be caused by a handle of a handpump.

An effort was made to show that at the most offence u/s 325 is made out but I am not convinced with this argument because of the brain matter coming out of the head injury. The doctor who has been examined has categorically deposed about the damage caused to the injured Ranjit Singh. The injuries were explored and the bones underlying all the three injuries were found fractured and brain matter coming out. Thus, there can be a reasonable inference that the appellant had the requisite intention or knowledge as required u/s 307, IPC. I have gone through the reasons advanced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, who has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 307, IPC.

As the appellant is facing the criminal proceedings since 1986 and the injured is hale and hearty, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would suffice, if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced from 3 years to two years. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. Let the intimation about the dismissal of this appeal be sent to the C.J.M., Patiala, so that the appellant may be taken into custody in order to serve the remaining sentence.