Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Darshan Singh appellant, and his brother Mehar Singh were prosecuted for causing death of their third brother Ajmer Singh in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, who acquitted Mehar Singh but convicted Darshan Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Darshan Singh was further convicted under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for causing grievous injuries to Tej Kaur wife of Ajmer Singh who was injured in the incident. Feeling aggrieved Darshan Singh has filed this appeal.

Prosecution case is that is on 24.10.1985, at about 8.00 p.m. Tej Kaur PW had gone to their fields alongwith her husband Ajmer Singh deceased to irrigate their land. Their son Jaskaran Singh alias Happy, aged about 8 years was also with them. Darshan Singh and Mehar Singh were already present in the fields and were irrigating their land. As the vari time of Darshan Singh was over and he was irrigating the field although he was not entitled to according to the schedule, Ajmer Singh asked Tej Kaur, to divert the water to their land and she diverted it. Darshan Singh and Mehar Singh altercated with the deceased and Mehar Singh gave two Kassia blows from the sharp side on the head of the deceased. Ajmer Singh fell down. Darshan Singh appellant also caused blows with his Gandasa hitting deceased on his chin and thigh. Both Darshan Singh and Mehar Singh gave 4/5 more blows to the deceased using reverse side of their weapon. Darshan Singh gave Gandasa blow to Tej Kaur hitting her on her head; another blow hitting on her left arm. She fell down. Then Mehar Singh caused her two more blows with his Kassia. Both the accused gave further blows to her with the reverse side of the weapons. She also acted in selfdefence and caused injuries to Darshan Singh.

Darshan Singh went to his house after the occurrence whereas Mehar Singh continued irrigating the land. Mother of the deceased alongwith one member panchayat reached the place of occurrence 2/3 hours after the occurrence. Tej Kaur was removed to the village. Ajmer Singh was already dead. Tej Kaur narrated the incident to Harnek Singh and her motherinlaw. Harnek Singh alongwith Nirbhai Singh Sarpanch went to police Station Kot Bhai and lodged the first information report Exhibit PA.

SubInspector Rajinder Kumar after recording the first information report went to the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. He took the blood stained earth from two place. Darshan Singh was arrested on 25.10.1985 and Gandasa Exhibit P1 which he was carrying at the time of arrest was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PM. Mehar Singh was arrested on 28.10.1985. Gandasa Exhibit P1 taken into possession from Darshan Singh was found to be stained with blood and it was reported to be of human origin vide report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit PR. The blood stained earth which was sealed into a parcel was also found to be stained with human blood.

After completion of the investigation the accused were challaned and prosecuted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case examined Tej Kaur PW 2 and Jaskaran Singh PW 3 as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal PW 1 had conducted the medicolegal examination of Tej Kaur and Dr. Amarjit Singh PW 5 had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ajmer Singh. PW 6 Harnek Singh was examined to prove the first information report and PW 7 Sub Inspector Rajinder Kumar is the Investigating Officer.

After close of the prosecution case, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution allegations. Mehar Singh pleaded that he was not present at the time of the occurrence. Darshan Singh pleaded selfdefence Sukhchain Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was examined as DW 1.

Dr. Amarjit Singh PW 5 at the time of postmortem examination found the following injuries on the dead body of Ajmer Singh.

An incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone cut on the left parietal region in vertical direction 12 cm away from the left eyebrow, and 2 cm away from the midline.

An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region 4 cm away from the midline and 8 cm above the right eyebrow.

An incised wound 3 cm 1 x cm x bone deep on the inferior anterior surface of the chin 4 cm below the lower lip in its middle part.

An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the inferior lateral aspect of the right thigh in its upper part.

2 bruises 8 cm x 2 cm reddish bluish in colour on the front of the chest horizontally placed 2 cm away from each other in its middle part.

A bruise 6 cm x 3 cm reddish bluish in colour on the anterior aspect of the left thigh in the middle.

An abrasion 6 cm x 1 cm on the anterior aspect of left thigh in its middle part.

Dr. B.S. Dhaliwal, PW 1 found the following injuries on the person of Tej Karu injured :

Incised wound 41/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep reddish blood clotted, longitudinal on left parietal region, underlying bone was cut 6 cm above left ear root.

Lacerated wound 1 cm x linear into skin deep 3 cm back and above injury No. 1.

Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 3/4 cm deep on left back forearm, longitudinal 4 cm below left elbow joint.

Abrasion 3/4 cm 1/2 cm on the medial aspect of ring finger at right terminal phalanx.

Reddish swelling 12 cm x 3 cm on the back of chest left scapular region transverse.

Reddish bruise 12 cm x 3 cm on left back oblique abdomen upper medial to lower lateral 5 cm back to anterior iliac spine.

Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm deep longitudinal on left parietal region 4 cm above left ear root.

Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm deep on the left occipital region 7 cm back and above left ear root.

The trial Court after trail had acquitted Mehar Singh mainly on the ground that his name does not find mention in the first information report and the eyewitnesses had made improvements from the version given by them to the police in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court was also influenced by the fact that Jaskaran Singh PW 8 had admitted that he was turtored and that Mehar Singh was present when the Investigating Officer had visited the spot still no action was taken against him and the fact he had came with a cart to the place of occurrence and had taken Tej Kaur injured in that cart to the village. Taking all these circumstances, the trial Court did not find the testimony of Tej Kaur and Happy reliable qua Mehar Singh and acquitted him.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. Deceased Ajmer Singh had seven injuries on his person. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 are on the head and they are attributed to Mehar Singh, the acquitted accused. Injury Nos. 3 to 7 are on the nonvital part of the body and they are attributed to Darshan Singh. Tej Kaur and Happy had attributed major injuries to Mehar Singh but their testimony was not found acceptable qua him for good reasons and we do not see any reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court. The acquittal of Mehar Singh is based on valid grounds. There is no other evidence or circumstance which may suggest that the testimony of Tej Kaur and Happy is further supported as far as Darshan Singh is concerned. When the testimony of these eyewitnesses is not acceptable and that too for good reasons qua the person who had caused major injuries it will be difficult to accept the same qua the person who had caused minor injuries. Mr. P.S. Kang appearing for Advocate General, Punjab has not been able to point out any circumstance which may show that the case of Darshan Singh is at different footing than Mehar Singh.

The prosecution case is entirely depending upon the testimony of Tej Kaur and Happy. Their testimony when seen in the light of the finding of the trial Court cannot be taken to be sufficient to convict Darshan Singh appellant. The case of Darshan Singh cannot be dissected. If the prosecution case is not acceptable qua Mehar Singh there is no reason why it is acceptable qua Darshan Singh.

Considering the prosecution evidence as it is, it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant. Darshan Singh is given the benefit of doubt and this appeal is accepted and he is acquitted of the charges.