Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by Gurjant Singh against the judgment of the learned trial Court, convicting him under section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2/1 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1100/ indefault of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The appellant was workings as a Siri with Boota Singh (P.W.4). The prosecution case is that a few days before the occurrence, Jagtar Singh (P.W.3) son of Boota Singh PW had thrown some grass on the ground and the dust emanating therefrom fell on the appellant. This enraged the appellant and he hurled filthy abuses upon Jagtar Singh. The latter reported the matter to his father Boota Singh who reprimanded the appellant which gave him further annoyance. On the following day, the appellant reported late at the house of Boota Singh by about 3 or 4 hours and on this account, Boota Singh turned him out of the house. However, on the next day, on the intervention of Niranjan Singh, father of the appellant, Boota Singh allowed the appellant to continue working as Siri.

On the night intervening 15th and 16th of August, 1980, Boota Sigh took the turn of water to irrigate his fields at 2.08 A.M. and he continued to irrigate the fields upto 4.00 A.M. He was accompanied by his son Jagtar Singh, appellant Gurjant Singh and one Teja Singh. At 4.00 A.M., the belt of engine with the help of which the fields being irrigated, broke. The appellant started repairing the same. Boota Singh lay at a cot which was lying nearby and Teja Singh and Jagtar Singh remained at distance of about 10 karams from Boota Singh. The appellant had a gandasa with him. He gave for gandasa blows on the neck and face of Boota Singh. An alarm was raised by Jagtar Singh and Teja Singh and they tried to apprehend the appellant but the letter made good his escape.

Boota Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital, Sangat where he was medically examined by Dr. A. K. Mandal (PW. 1.). The doctor sent information to Sangat Police Station regarding the injuries received by Boota Singh in pursuance of which Head, Constable Janak Singh reached the hospital at 7.15 A.M. and he recorded the statement of Jagtar Singh (Exhibit PF) on the basis of which a formal First information Report (Exhibit PF/2) was recorded.

The appellant, in his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the occurrence and stated that he has been falsely implicated merely on suspicion. He admitted having abused Jagtar Singh PW for having thrown grassdust at him a few days before the occurrence. According to the defence version, it is probably due to that incident that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

Dr. A. K. Mandal (PW 1) found the following injuries on the person of Boota Singh :

One incised bleading wound 8 3/4 cm x 1 to 3 cm x 1 cm (bone deep behind the middle of car) over the lower part of neck left side 1 cm. behind the left ear and extending over the upper part of neck of left side.

One incised wound gaping bleeding 5 cm x 1 cm to 2 cm. x 1 to 1/3/4 cm. deep, with tailing of wound for 2 cm. over the medical side of wound situated over lower part of face left side between the angle of the mandible and left side corner of mouth, underlying bone was cut.

One incised bleeding wound 1/3/4 cm x 1/2 cm xd 11/4 cm over from to lateral aspect of upper part on neckleft side. 2 cm below injury No. 1.

One incised bleeding wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm x 1 cm over left side of upper part of neck and in line of injury No. 2 which was connected with a linear abrasion 3 cm in length."

The doctor opined that the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon and he gave a written opinion (Exhibit PD/A) on 13.9.1980 on an application made by the police that injury No. 2 was grievous and possibility of its having been dangerous to life could not be ruled out.

The appellant examined some witnesses to prove that Boota Singh had taken loans from many persons who were litigating with him. This evidence was produced to indicate that any one of his creditors may have caused injuries to him whom he was unable to identify and on this account he had falsely implicated him, i.e., appellant, merely on suspicion. The statement of Kartar Singh (DW. 4) lends some support to the prosecution case. He admitted in crossexamination that Boota Singh''s turn of water starts at 2.08 A. M.

The learned appellant''s counsel could not advance any cogent reasons to discredit the veracity of the prosecution evidence. Admittedly, the appellant had quarrelled with the son of Boota Singh a few days before the occurrence. Boota Singh had gone to take his turn of water at 2.09 A.M. and it is quite natural that he took his said Gurjant Singh, appellant, with him. The injuries mere caused to Boota Singh from such close quarters that be could have no doubt regarding the identity of the assailant, especially when a lantern is said to have been burning nearby. The learned counsel, therefore, could not assail the findings of the trial Court regarding the receipt of injuries by Boota Singh at the. hands of the appellant. The only cogent point raised by the learned counsel is that the offence by the appellant notices within the ambit of section 326 and not section 307 Indian Penal Code.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. A. K. Mandal (PW 1) had declared injury No. 2 of Bootas Singh as grievous with the added observation that the possibility of its having been dangerous to life could not be ruled out. This observation is not sufficient to prove that this injury was of such a nature that it would have proved fatal if timely Medical aid was not rendered to the injured. Simply on the observations of the doctor that this injury could possibly be dangerous to life, does not attract the application of section 307, Indian Penal Code.

In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant is converted under section 326, Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and of course with the fine imposed by the trial Court. With this modification in the order of conviction and sentence, this appeal is dismissed.