Dilbag Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

This is a criminal appeal filed by Dilbag Singh son of Shri Chanan Singh and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.1997 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who convicted the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.1995 at about 9.00 p.m., Mukhtiar Singh PW was talking with Balwinder Singh in the common courtyard of his house and that of his brother Malook Singh. Sukhwinder Singh and Rachhpal Singh, nephews of Mukhtiar Singh PW also stood near Mukhtiar Singh and Balwinder Singh. The electric bulbs were burning in the courtyard and the street as well. In the meanwhile, Gurnam Singh accused empty handed, Dilbag Singh accused armed with DBBL gun, Ajit Singh accused armed with DBBL gun, Khazan Singh accused carrying Datar and Satnam Singh accused duly armed with Kirpan came in the open site lying vacant in front of the house of Mukhtiar Singh. Gurnam Singh accused raised lalkara exhorting his coaccused to riddle the body of Mukhtiar Singh by repeated firing and he should not be allowed to go alive. Upon this, Dilbag Singh and Ajit Singh started firing towards Mukhtiar Singh PW with an intent to kill him. Mukhtiar Singh laid himself on the ground, as a result of which he could not be hurt. Rachhpal Singh, however, was hit on his left ear, left cheek and right side of his back by firing. The fire also hit Balwinder Singh on his right shoulder, both sides of his chest, neck and the temple of his forehead. Sukhwinder Singh PW also received fire arm injuries in the left and right side of his chest. Chanan Singh PW, who was sitting inside the house of Malook Singh, had witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, the police party headed by Amrik Singh, HC came there while shouting that they have reached. Then the accused took to their heels with their respective weapons while raising lalkara. All the injured persons were removed to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar by Mukhtiar Singh PW, where they were medicolegally examined. Chanan Singh PW had met Amrik Singh, HC in the house of Mukhtiar Singh and had told that Balwinder Singh, Rachipal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh have been removed to Amritsar as they had sustained fire arm injuries. There was none in the house of Mukhtiar Singh. Chanan Singh also went away after giving the information to Amrik Singh, HC, who informed the SHO of Police Station Ajnala about the incident on wireless.

Sukhwinder Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station Ajnala along with some other police officials reached the place of occurrence and he recorded the statement Ex. PB/1 of HC Amrik Singh, who was present at the spot. It was sent to the Police Station for the registration of case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PB/3 was recorded. In the next morning at about 6.30 a.m. the place of occurrence was inspected in the presence of Chanan Singh PW. Four empty cartridges Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 were recovered and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PC which was attested by ASI Harjit Singh and Chanan Singh PW. SI Sukhwinder Singh also prepared rough site plan Ex.PK of the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and the injured persons.

On 30.11.1995, house of Dilbag Singh accused was raided, where Dilbag Singh and Khazan Singh accused were found present. Firstly, Dilbag Singh was arrested and interrogated. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PD he got recovered a gun and five cartridges, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. Khazan Singh accused was also interrogated about the weapon of offence and he got recovered a Datar which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH.

On 4.12.1995, Ajit Singh accused was arrested. On 9.12.1995, Gurnam Singh accused was arrested. On 14.12.1995 Satnam Singh was produced before SI Sukhwinder Singh in the police station along with a Kirpan, which was taken into possession and the accused was arrested. On completion of investigation of the case, the accused were challaned in the Court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 14.2.1996 committed the accused to the Court of Session in order to face the trial.

Vide order dated 15.4.1996, all the five accused were chargesheeted under Sections 148, 307 and 307/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWI Jaswant Singh, Arms Clerk, PW2 HC Amrik Singh, PW3 Rachpal Singh, PW4 Balwinder Singh, PW5 Sukhwinder Singh, PW6 Mukhtiar Singh, PW7 ASI Harjit Singh, PW8 ASI Santosh Kumar, PW9 SI Sukhwinder Singh and PW10 Dr. Rattanjit Singh.

On the closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. They have denied the allegations of the prosecution by stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction in the village. In defence, accused did not lead any evidence and closed the case.

The learned trial Court acquitted Khazan Singh, Satnam Singh, Ajit Singh and Gurnam Singh, but convicted Dilbag Singh appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. in the manner stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, DAG, Punjab on behalf of the State.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the informant HC Amrik Singh PW2 has been disbelieved by the trial court and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. Moreover, the trial court has also disbelieved the statements of the injured witnesses in part when it acquitted four accused out of the five. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant for the reason that HC Amrik Singh PW2, in fact, was not the eye witness of this case. He came at the spot on hearing the report of the gun shots. In this case there are three injured witnesses namely Rachhpal Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. They have suffered gun shot injuries and some injuries are on the vital parts of their bodies. Even if the statements of the injured witnesses have been disbelieved on certain aspects by the trial court, it does not mean that they should be disbelieved on other aspects also. False in one particular cannot be false in every particular. In these circumstances, the evidence of the three injured witnesses is required to be scrutinised with care and caution. I have already stated above that all the three injured had received fire arm injuries. The occurrence had taken place inside the house of Mukhtiar Singh. There was an abundant light. Moreover, some of the accused were armed with Datar and Kirpan and no injury was inflicted with these weapons. One of the accused was only attributed lalkara. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has rightly been given to the four accused. But so far as the present appellant is concerned, the evidence is consistent that he was armed with a double barrel gun and he fired successive shots hitting Rachhpal Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. Further, the statements of these three injured witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence of PW10 Dr. Rattanjit Singh, who medically examined Balwinder Singh and found the following four injuries on his person :

Lacerated wound x cm. on the right side of forehead just below the hair line of scalp 4 cm. above the outer end of right eye brow. Another lacerated wound x cm. apart from the former wound. Margins of the wounds were achymosed. Clotted blood was present.

A lacerated wound x cm. On the right side of neck just below the hair line of beard. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

A lacerated wound 0.25 cm. x .025 cm. on the right upper arm 7 cm. from the axillae. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

A lacerated wound .25 cm. x .25 cm. on the right side of front of chest, 3 cm. above and outside to the right mammary gland. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

This doctor has categorically stated that the weapon used was firearm for all the injuries.

Similarly, this very doctor medically examined Sukhwinder Singh and found as many as three injuries on his person, described as under :

A lacerated wound 0.25 cm. x .25 cm. on the right collar bone in its middle part above 7 cm. from the left shoulder joint. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

A lacerated wound .25 x .25 cm. on the front of right side of chest, 3 cm. below and outwards to the mammary gland. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

A lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. on the front of right side of chest 5 cm. below and outwards to the injury No. 2. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

It has further been certified by the doctor that the kind of weapon used was fire arm for theses injuries.

PW10 Dr. Rattanjit Singh also examined Rachhpal Singh injured witness and found the following two injuries on his person :

A lacerated wound .25 x 0.25 cm. on the left cheek 2 cm. anteriorly to the left ear. Margins of the wound were achymosed.

A blackish abrasion 1 x cm. on the right scapular region 7 cm. below the shoulder joint. Over lying skin was achymosed.

These two injuries were caused by firm arm as per the opinion of the doctor.

Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that at the most offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is made out. I am not ready to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Repeated shots have been fired. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct that the injuries are on the nonvital parts of the bodies of the injured. Some injuries are on the vital parts of the bodies of the injured. If the injured have survived on account of sheer providence, no benefit can be granted to the appellant. We have to see the intention and knowledge which is quite evident from the nature of the weapon and the receipt of the injuries. Firearm has been used and it is a case of repeated shots.

Lastly, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence awarded to the appellant is quite excessive. He submitted that the appellant is in custody since November, 1995. So much so, he was not bailed out by the High Court in appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. On the contrary, the learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the request of the appellant''s counsel on the plea that since it is a case of firm arm and three persons have been injured, therefore, the sentence should not be disturbed.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the substantive sentence of the appellant Dilbag Singh stands reduced to 4 (four and a half) years. With above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.