Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

V.M. Jain, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.11.1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda convicting the accused appellants under Sections 326, 326/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentencing accused appellant Darshan Singh to undergo RI for 21/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months under Section 326 IPC, RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 month under Section 326/34 IPC and RI for 1 year under Section 325/34 IPC and sentencing accused appellant Beant Singh to undergo RI for 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months under Section 326 IPC, RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 1 month under Section 326/34 IPC and directing all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

As per the case of the prosecution Sadhu Singh injured was returning after visiting Mansa and when he reached near his house accused appellant Darshan Singh and Beant Singh came there and at that time Beant Singh was armed with gandhala while Darshan Singh accused was armed with gandasa and both of them raised lalkara that Sadhu Singh to be taught a lesson for helping Bholo and thereafter accused appellant Beant Singh gave a gandhala blow towards the head of Sadhu Singh, PW and to save himself he raised his left arm as a result of which he was hit on the back of his left hand while Darshan Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on the left side of the head of Sadhu Singh whereupon Sadhu Singh fell on the ground. It is alleged that accused Beant Singh gave another gandhala blow from its pointed side on the back of left hand of Sahdu Singh when he was lying on the ground and thereafter both Darshan Singh and Beant Singh gave various injuries on various parts of the person of Sadhu Singh, PW with their respective weapons using the same lathiwise. As per the prosecution allegations the entire occurrence was witnessed by Shinder Kaur and Tek Singh, PWs. According to the prosecution both the accused ran away with their respective weapons inside their house after the occurrence. It is alleged that after the occurrence, Sadhu Singh injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Mansa by Surjit Singh on a tractor trolley where he was medically examined. On the statement Exhibit PK given to the police, formal F.I.R. Exhibit PK/3 was recorded in the Police Station on 29.9.1986 at 12.55 p.m. under Sections 324/34 IPC. Thereafter, ASI Manmohan Singh took up the investigation, went to the spot and prepared the rough site plan, Exhibit PL on the pointing out to Tek Singh and Shinder Kaur and arrested both the accused in this case on 1.10.1986. After receiving the Xray reports, the offence was changed from Section 324 IPC to 326 IPC as some of the injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh were declared grievous having been caused with sharp edged weapon. Subsequently, after the completion of investigation, the challan was put in the Court under Section 307/34 etc. Both the accused were charged under Sections 307/34, 326 and 325/34 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, to which charges the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution led its evidence. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In their statements, both the accused denied the prosecution allegations against them and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Darshan Singh accused further stated that on the day of occurrence in the early morning he was sleeping in the sabat of coaccused Beant Singh and he woke up on hearing the cries of Mohinder Kaur and saw Sadhu Singh attempting to commit rape upon her on a cot in her house whereupon he took up a gandasa and inflicted injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh with sharp and reverse side in order to save the honour of Mohinder Kaur. It was alleged that the turban and shoes of Sadhu Singh, PW were left in the house of Beant Singh. While he was running, he stumbled with this left foot hitting the threshold of the house of Beant Singh. He further stated that wife of Sadhu Singh, PW was away to her parents'' house for a week prior to the present occurrence. He stated that he reported the entire occurrence to Mansa police but Sadhu Singh got him falsely implicated in this case. Accused Beant Singh stated that he was the only earning member of his family and for that reason he had been falsely implicated in this case and also to stop him from reporting to the higher authorities against the false implication of coaccused Darshan Singh. In their defence, the accused examined DW1 Mohinder Kaur.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and after perusing the record convicted the appellants accused under Sections 326, 326/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo various imprisonments referred to above vide judgment and order dated 4.11.1987. It is against this judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda that both the accused have filed the present appeal.

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

The learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants submitted before me that the accused appellants had come out with a cross version and had examined DW1 Mohinder Kaur in support of their case. It was submitted that DW1 Mohinder Kaur is as good a witness and there was no reason to discard the testimony of this witness who was produced by the accused in their defence. It was further submitted that the medical evidence led by the prosecution was silent regarding the injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh, injuries being fresh and this would belie the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at 12.30 p.m on 28.9.1986. It was further submitted that no blood stained earth was lifted from the place which would also create a doubt about the place of occurrence. It was further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in this case. It was further submitted that the presence of PW4 Smt. Shinder Kaur at the time of occurrence is also doubtful considering her conduct at the time of occurrence and after the occurrence. It was further submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R and the delay has not been explained.

However, I do not find any force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the accused appellants. Both PW3 Sadhu Singh, injured and his wife PW4 Smt. Shinder Kaur had fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the manner in which the present occurrence had taken place. PW3 Sadhu Singh injured had categorically denied having received the injuries at the hands of Darshan Singh accused while he was attempting to commit rape upon the person of DW1 Mohinder Kaur in the house of accused appellant Beant Singh. Nothing has come on record to doubt the testimony of PW3 Sadhu Singh and PW4 Smt. Shinder Kaur about the manner in which Sadhu Singh injured had received the injuries at the time of present occurrence.

When PW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Garg appeared in the witness box. He deposed that on 28.9.1986 at 1.55 p.m. Sadhu Singh injured was brought by one Surjit Singh to the hospital and at 2.00 p.m. he had medicolegally examined Sadhu Singh and found as many as 12 injuries on various parts of his body including an incised wound on the occipital parietal region which was bone deep and there was cut on the underlying bone, besides various other incised wounds and reddish contusions. According to him probable duration of the injuries was within 12 hours and the kind of weapon used for injury Nos. 1, 3, and 4 was sharp while rest of the injuries were with blunt weapon. Injury Nos. 8 and 9 were declared as simple while the remaining injuries were subjected to Xray examination, while injury No. 1 was kept under observation. He proved the carbon copy of MLR Exhibit PB and the pictorial diagrams Exhibit PB/1 showing the seat of injuries. He proved the opinion Exhibit PC/1 on the police request Exhibit PC, vide which he had declared that injury No. 1 could be the result of gandasa blow while injury Nos. 3 and 4 could be caused with sharp side of gandhala. He also proved opinion Exhibit PD/1 on the police request Exhibit PD, after consulting Xray report, vide which he has declared injury No. 1 to the grievous and injury Nos. 2 and 3 were also declared to be grievous and similarly injury Nos. 6 and 12 were also declared as grievous. He stated that there were fractures under all the grievous injuries as per the Xray report and he had given his opinion after seeing the Xray reports. He stated that in all there were 5 grievous injuries including one on the head and the remaining injuries were simple. He stated that collective effect of all the injuries may be dangerous to life, if timely medical aid had not been given. He deposed that except injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 other injuries could be caused from blunt side of gandasa or gandhali used lathiwise. He sated that as per the bed head ticket Exhibit PF the patient was discharged on 15.10.1986. During cross examination he stated that as the patient remained conscious throughout, injuries described on the MLR were not dangerous to life. He proved his opinion exhibit DA/1 in this regard. He sated that except injury Nos. 1 and 8 the other injuries were not on the vital parts of the body. He stated that he did not observe and again said he did not remember if there was blood or not on the clothes of the injured. He further stated that he did not find any cut on any clothes corresponding to any injuries on the person of the injured.

From the statement of PW1 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Garg, it could not be said that the occurrence had not taken place at 12.30 p.m. on 28.9.1986. As referred to above, Dr. Garg had medicolegally examined Sadhu Singh injured at 2.00 p.m. in Civil Hospital, Mansa. He described all the 12 injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh in the MedicoLegal Report, copy Exhibit PB. He gave the probable duration of the injuries as within 12 hours. He had given the details of various incised wounds on the person of Sadhu Singh, injured including the incised would on the left occipital parietal region which was bone deep having cut on the underlying bone. He had found haemorrhage in respect of the three incised wounds on the person of Sadhu Singh, injured. He had also found reddish contusions on various parts of the body and most of these were having swelling which was tender on touch. This witness was not crossexamined with regard to the duration of the injuries. It was not put to him during cross examination on behalf of the accused that Sadhu Singh injured could not have received those injuries at 12.30 p.m. on 28.9.1986. Considering the nature of injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh and considering that Dr. Rajinder Kumar Garg was not crossexamined about the duration of injuries, in my opinion, it could not be said that the present occurrence had not taken place at 12.30 p.m or that Sadhu Singh injured had received injuries on the morning of 28.9.1986. This is especially so when both PW3 Sadhu Singh and PW4 Shinder Kaur had categorically stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 12.30 p.m. on 28.9.1986 and there is absolutely no reason to discard the testimony of these witnesses in this regard.

With regard to the nonremoval of blood stained earth, it has come in the testimony of PW6, ASI Manmohan Singh that place of occurrence was a thoroughfare and nothing could be lifted from the spot as nothing was available there. As referred to above, the occurrence had taken place on 28.9.1986 at about 12.30 p.m. while ASI Manmohan Singh had visited the spot on 29.9.1986, after he had recorded the statement Exhibit PK and had sent the same to the Police Station vide his endorsement Exhibit PK/2 at 12.45 p.m. on 29.9.1986. If the blood stained earth was there at the spot the same could not be lifted after more than 24 hours of the occurrence especially when the place of occurrence was a thoroughfare.

With regard to the delay in loding the F.I.R., it has come in the statement of PW1 Dr. R.K. Garg that Sadhu Singh, injured was unfit to make statement on 28.9.1986 at 2.05 p.m. as per his endorsement Exhibit PE/1 on the police request Exhibit PE. Subsequently, on the police application Exhibit PJ, the doctor gave his opinion Exhibit PJ/1 on 29.9.1986 at 12.05 p.m. declaring Sadhu Singh, PW fit to make statement. It was thereafter that ASI Manmohan Singh recorded the statement Exhibit PK of Sadhu Singh, PW and sent the same to police station vide Exhibit PK/2 at 12.45 p.m. on 29.9.1986 on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exhibit PK/3 was recorded in the police station Mansa at 12.55 p.m. on 29.9.1986 under Sections 324/34 IPC. Since one Surjit Singh had brought Sadhu Sigh, PW to the hospital on 28.9.1986 thus said Surjit Singh had not witnessed the occurrence and since Sadhu Singh injured was unfit it make the statement, the police could not record the statement of any other person with regard to the present occurrence. It was only on 29.9.1986 after recording statement of Sadhu Sigh that the police came to know about the names of the other eye witnesses namely Smt. Shinder Kaur and her father on 29.9.1986. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my opinion, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been fully explained and the case of the prosecution could not be thrown away on the ground of delay. This is especially so when it has come in the evidence that Smt. Shinder Kaur and her father had not gone to the hospital on 28.9.1986 and 29.9.1986.

From the facts of the present case it could not be said that the conduct of Smt. Shinder Kaur, PW at the time of occurrence or after the occurrence was in any way abnormal. Merely because Smt. Shinder Kaur, PW did not physically intervene at the time when the accused were causing injuries to her husband Sadhu Singh, PW, in my opinion, would be no ground to discard the testimony of this witness or to hold that her conduct was abnormal at the time of occurrence. Similarly, postoccurrence conduct also could not be termed as abnormal because Smt. Shinder Kaur had not accompanied Surjit Singh when Sadhu Singh, PW was removed from the place of occurrence to the hospital. PW3 Sadhu Singh injured categorically stated that his wife and fatherinlaw remained at house and did not accompany him to hospital. He stated that he had not asked them to inform the police and they met him in the hospital on the 3rd day of the occurrence for the first time after the occurrence. He had denied the suggestion that his wife was away to his inlaws'' house on the day of occurrence or that she has not witnessed the occurrence. Similarly, Smt. Shinder Kaur had denied that she was not present at the spot or in the village on the day of occurrence or that she was called from her village on the third day of occurrence. In my opinion, the presence of Smt. Shinder Kaur at the time of occurrence is quite natural and her testimony could not be brushed aside on the ground that her conduct was abnormal

So far as the testimony of DW1 Mohinder Kaur is concerned, the same was brushed aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by observing that the story narrated by Mohinder Kaur appeared to be incorrect and not worthy of credence. It was found that Mohinder Kaur had narrated her version for the first time in the Court and gave the explanation that the police did not register the case on the pretext that it would involve her honour. It was also observed that if she could come and depose in the Court, she could also have insisted before the police that the case should be registered and guilty should be punished and if the police had not registered the case on her statement, she could have approached higher authorities. It was also observed that from the statement of Darshan Singh, accused it has come on the record that turban and shoes of Sadhu Singh, PW remained in the house of Beant Singh when Sadhu Singh injured was running, but turban or shoes of Sadhu Singh were not produced before the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that Smt. Mohinder Kaur stated during her crossexamination that her father and her brother had gone to the fields while the children had gone to the school at the time of occurrence. But it was found that 28.9.1986 when the occurrence took place was a Sunday and school were closed on Sunday and this fact would also show that Mohinder Kaur had deposed falsely to save the accused in this case. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are cogent and convincing for discarding the testimony of Mohinder Kaur especially when she is sister of accused Beant Singh and would come out to save her brother Beant Singh and her cousin Darshan Singh accused. As referred to above, if Sadhu Singh, PW had tried to commit rape upon Mohinder Kaur and if accused Darshan Singh has caused injuries to Sadhu Singh in that process, there is no reason as to why a case was not got registered with the police against Sadhu Singh in this regard and if the police had not registered any case, there is no reason as to why the accused side had not taken up the matter with the higher authorities or bad not filed a criminal complaint against Sadhu Singh in this regard. However, nothing has come on record to show as to why turban and shoes of Sadhu Singh were not handed over to the police to prove that in fact Sadhu Singh had come to the house of accused Beant Singh and had tried to commit rape upon Mohinder Kaur and in that process accused Darshan Singh had caused injuries to Sadhu Singh with gandasa. When ASI Manmohan Singh appeared in the witness box as PW6, he categorically denied the suggestion that Darshan Singh accused had reported the matter in the police station on 28.9.1986 or that he had detained Darshan Singh or had falsely implicated the accused in this case. He denied the suggestion that he had shifted the place of occurrence from the house of Beant Singh. It was not put to this witness that Mohinder Kaur had ever made a statement to him with regard to the story of attempted rape. That being so, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of DW1 Mohinder Kaur when she stated that after the occurrence, Darshan Singh went to the police to inform it and police came to the village and she narrated the whole occurrence to the police but the police did not register the case on the pretext that it will involve her honour.

With regard to the motive the prosecution has examined PW5 Smt. Bholo, who categorically stated that her father had two brothers namely Saudagar Singh and Puran Singh and that accused Beant Singh was son of Puran Singh while accused Darshan Singh was son of her father''s sister. She further stated that Sadhu Singh, PW was her uncle from brotherhood. She stated that her father had died about 4 years back and he owned 61/4 killas of land which was in her possession. She stated that a civil suit regarding that land was instituted by her against Puran Singh and it was decided in her favour and in that suit Sadhu Singh, PW used to help her. During crossexamination she stated that her husband used to accompany her for pairvi of that case. She denied the suggestion that she had instituted the suit against Puran Singh on 25.4.1987 i.e. after the present occurrence. She stated that in fact she had filed the suit prior to the present occurrence. She denied the suggestion that the suit was filed at the instance of Sadhu Singh after the occurrence. She stated that the suit was filed against Puran Singh about 5 or 6 months prior to the present occurrence. She stated that whenever she visited the village, she stayed with Sadhu Singh after the present occurrence whereas prior to the present occurrence she used to visit the house of the accused as also the complainant. She denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely at the instance of Sadhu Singh. When Sadhu Singh appeared in the witness box as PW3 he also deposed that he was supporting Smt. Bholo in her case with accused Beant Singh regarding 61/4 killas of land. During crossexamination he stated that Smt. Bholo had filed a suit against Puran Singh, father of Beant Singh about 1 year prior to the present occurrence. He stated that he did not appear as a witness though he was cited as a witness in that case. He stated that he was cited as a witness even prior to the present occurrence. He stated that he used to accompany Smt. Bholo on every date of hearing. He stated that Smt. Bholo was a witness of the prosecution in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that no case was pending between Puran Singh and Smt. Bholo prior to the present occurrence.

From the evidence led by the prosecution in the form of statements of PW3 and PW5 Smt. Bholo, in my opinion, it stands established on the record that the accused had a motive to cause injuries on the person of Sadhu Singh, injured. Nothing has come on the record to discard the testimony of PW5 Smt. Bholo that the litigation between her and Puran Singh, father of the accused Beant Singh was pending even prior to the present occurrence. In my opinion the motive stands fully proved on the record in this case.

From the above discussion, in my opinion, it stands established on record that both the accused had caused injuries to Sadhu Singh, PW with their respective weapons and I am further of the opinion that learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly convicted that accused appellants under Sections 326, 326/34 and 325/34 IPC. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of the accused appellants for the said offences.

No further point has been urged before me in this appeal.

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is dismissed.