Gurcharan Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

H.S. Brar, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 704-SB-86 filed by Gurcharan Singh, Harbans Singh and Krishan Dev alias Krishan Pandit and Criminal Appeal No. 73 l-SB-86, filed by Jagjit Singh are being disposed of together as both these appeals have been filed against a common judgment/order dated 3-11-1986 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Vide the aforesaid judgment/ order all the four appellants were convicted u/s 307 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Brief facts of the case are that Hazura Singh complainant made a statement Ex. PG on 14-4-1985, before the police stating therein that on 14-4-1985, at about 8 a.m. he along with his wife Bharpur Kaur went to their fields to have a round and there all the four accused i.e. Gurcharan Singh and Jagjit Singh armed with a Gandhali each, Harbans Singh armed with a Gandasa and Krishan Dev alias Krishan Pandit armed with a Dang came there. Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Singh are brothers. Jagjit Singh accused is Saadoo of Harbans Singh accused while Krishan Pandit accused is a friend of remaining accused. Gurcharan Singh accused raised a Lalkara that Hazura Singh would not be allowed to escape. Hazura Singh ran away but he was over-powered at a distance of about 20 karms in his field. All the four accused caused injuries with their respective weapons on the person of Hazura Singh and after causing the assault all the four accused fled away with their respective weapons. Hazura Singh and his wife raised alarm. His wife went to his house and informed his son Gurdev Singh, who brought a tractor trolley of Amar Singh to the place of occurrence and the injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Lambi and there he was medically examined and his statement was recorded in the hospital. He was also X-rayed at Lambi and Giddarbaha. Regarding the motive, it was alleged that 6 or 7 days prior to this occurrence his son Ranjit Singh and Gurcharan Singh accused had an altercation and they suffered injuries and the matter was got compromised by the Panchayat. The accused were arrested and after investigation, they were challaned and sent up for trial to the Court.

Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused by the committing Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Learned Addl: Sessions Judge, charge-sheeted all the accused u/s 307, IPC to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sarvshri Dr. Ajit Singh PW-1, Hukam Chand P.W. 2, Ranjit Singh PW-3, Bhagwan Dass PW-4, Hazura Singh PW-5, Bharpur Kaur PW-6, A.S.I. Anokh Singh PW-7, Dr. A. C. Gupta PW-8 and ASI Kartar Singh PW-9.

Constable Kaka Singh and S. I. Madan Gopal PWs were given up as unnecessary while Kartar Singh, Sarpanch, was given up as won over by the accused.

Harbans Singh, Jagjit Singh and Krishan Dev accused-appellants, in their statements recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C., denied the allegations of prosecution and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Gurcharan Singh accused also denied the allegations of the prosecution, in his statement recorded u/s 313, Cr.P.C. and he took a specific plea which reads as under :-

I am innocent. About 6/7 days earlier to the alleged occurrence, I had a quarrel with Ranjit Singh when both of us received injuries and the Panchayat of the village got the matter compromised through a writing. On the alleged day of occurrence, at about 8 a.m., I and some other persons were sitting with Kartar Singh, Sarpanch, in the village Sath near the shop of Bant Ram, where Gurdev Singh came and told the Sarpanch that some persons had caused injuries to his father Hazura Singh, whereupon the Sarpanch and some other persons went to the fields.

In their defence, the accused-appellants produced Kartar Singh, Sarpanch of village Punjawa, as D.W.I and Karamjit Singh H. C. as D.W. 2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, the learned Addl : Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above.

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Jagjit Singh and Krishan Dev alias Krishan Pandit have not been proved to be related to Gurcharan Singh and Harbans Singh accused. They had thus, no motive to cause injuries to Hazura Singh and particularly, when Hazura Singh injured and his wife Bharpur Kaur PW could not identify them as they belonged to a distant village Kalcharni which was at a distance of about 12/13 kms from village Punjawa. This contention of the learned counsel is without any force. Hazura Singh injured PW as well as Bharpur Kaur PW have specifically named the accused who had caused injuries to Hazura Singh with their respective weapons. Hazura Singh has stated at the trial that Jagjit Singh accused is married in the same village, Jangirana where Harbans Singh accused is also married. He further deposed at the trial that Krishan Pandit accused was a friend of other three accused. Hazura Singh and his wife Bharpur Kaur have even given the minute details of the injuries caused by all these four accused to Hazura Singh. Thus, there is ample evidence on the record which shows that both Hazura Singh injured as well as Bharpur Kaur his wife knew Jagjit Singh and Krishan Pandit very well and there was no need of their further identification by the complainant.

The learned counsel has even suspected the presence of Bharpur Kaur PW, the wife of the injured Hazura Singh, by saying that Bharpur Kaur was not injured during the occurrence and thus, her presence at the time of occurrence is also doubtful. Simply because Bharpur Kaur was not injured, cannot be a proof of absence of Bharpur Kaur at the time of the accurrence. She being a female did not intervene, particularly, when all the accused were armed with deadly weapons and moreover, it has come in the evidence at the trial that she had immediately gone to the village and informed her son to bring the tractor trolley to remove the injured to the hospital. Bharpur Kaur PW has fully corroborated the testimony of Hazura Singh injured on all material points. Her credibility could not be shaken even when she was fully cross-examined at the trial. The testimony of Hazura Singh injured and Bharpur Kaur PW is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record.

The next contention of the learned counsel is that non-lifting of blood from the site of occurrence also causes doubt to the prosecution case. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel as there is every possibility that no blood could be found at the spot as the occurrence had taken place in the fields and due to struggle between 4-5 persons at the spot the blood could have been removed by the shoes or the feet of the persons present there. Even otherwise, the omission of the Investigating Officer not to pick up the blood stained earth, if at all, it was available, cannot cause dent in the prosecution story as it has been supported by an injured witness Hazura Singh as well as Bharpur Kaur his wife whose presence is also natural at the time of occurrence.

In the end, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in any case, from the injuries found on the person of Hazura Singh injured, no case u/s 307, IPC is made out, particularly in view of the fact that injury No. 6 was not x-rayed and thus, could not be termed as grievous injury and the remaining grievous injuries were found only on the non-vital parts of the injured who was discharged from the hospital on 20-5-1985. The learned counsel further submitted that at the time of medical examination the doctor did not opine that injuries given to Hazura Singh were collectively dangerous to life but subsequently on 4-6-1985 the opinion of the doctor was obtained by the police wherein it was described that all the injuries collectively given to the injured could prove dangerous to life if proper treatment was not given to the patient in time. According to the learned counsel, at the most, an offence u/s 326, IPC could be made if at all. This argument of the learned counsel seems to be attractive at the first instance but if we go deep into the matter, the contention of the learned counsel is proved meritless. Regarding injury No. 6, the doctor had given a definite opinion at the time of medical examination that the metacarpo-phalyngeal joint was completely dislocated and the ligament around joint was cut. He also found the movement of the right index finger as abnormal. The description of the injury No. 6 by the doctor itself is sufficient to describe it as grievous. Moreover, in the case in hand, the assailant did not stop short before giving 14 injuries on the person of Hazura Singh with their respective weapons and these injuries included three incised wounds, one incised punctured wound and out of 14 injuries, injuries No. 5, 6, 11 and 14 were cound to be grievous. Out of the grievous injuries, injury No. 6 and 14 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries No. 5 and 11 were caused by blunt weapon.

Doctor Ajit Singh (PW-1) deposed at the trial and opined vide his endorsement Ex. PD/1, that all the injuries on the person of the injured given collectively, could prove dangerous to life. It was further opined by the doctor that cuts on the turban could be the result of sharp edged weapon and that the injuries found on the person of Hazura Singh collectively could be dangerous to life and could cause death in the ordinary, course of nature. It has further come to my notice that injury No. 1 an incised wound 5 cm x 3/4 cm x 1 cm was found present vertically on the top of the middle of the head and the wound was bleeding. Again injury No. 2 a contused wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm was present obliquely on the front of the right side of head 2 cm backward from the hair line and the wound was bleeding. Then again on the head a contused wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of the head 7 cm above the upper margin of left ear pinna was found and it was bleeding and then an incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm was found on the outer aspect of the left eye-ball. It means there were as many as four injuries found on the head of the injured Hazura Singh despite the fact that he was wearing a turban at the time when the injuries were given on the person of Hazura Singh. Though these injuries were simple in nature but after taking into consideration the over-all picture of the injuries given by the accused and the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that the accused had no intention to cause death of Hazura Singh.

In view of this opinion of the doctor and the nature of the injuries, I cannot persuade myself to reach at a conclusion that the offence falls u/s 326, IPC and not u/s 307, IPC. This contention of the learned counsel that no cause u/s 307, IPC is made out, also fails.

The learned counsel for the appellants has finally argued that the convicts-appellants have undergone the agony of trial and their appeal is being heard after 10-11 years. They have already undergone about 1 month and 6 days as substantive sentence and they may not be sent to jail after such a long lapse of time. I wish, I could find any plausible reasons to give any relief to the convicts-appellants on the basis of this argument of the learned counsel but I am unable to find any reason, particularly, in view of so many injuries on the person of Hazura Singh. Moreover, the convicts-appellants did not undergo even a substantive portion of the sentence awarded to them.

In view of my discussion made above, both the appeals, i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 704-SB-86, filed by Gurcharan Singh, Harbans Singh and Krishan Dev alias Krishan Pandit and Crl. Appeal No. 731-SB-86, filed by Jagjit Singh, fail and are dismissed.