Gurpal Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadav, J.

This judgment will dispose of the above titled appeal and criminal Appeal No. 95(SB) 1981 titled Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted Bakhshish Singh appellant under section 307 and Gurpal Singh, Gurmej Singh and Balkar Singh accused under section 307 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code Gurpal Singh, Balkar Singh, Gurmej Singh have been further convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Bakhshish Singh under 323 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for the above offences and have also been ordered to pay fine. Feeling aggrieved, they have come up in appeal.

It may be mentioned here that along with the above four appellants, Jaswant Singh. soninlaw of Bakhshish Singh appellant, and Parshotam Singh were also tried but the learned trial court has acquitted them.

The prosecution version in brief is that on 30th December, 1979 at about 7.00 P.M. Kirpal Singh P.W.5 was returning to his village Gorala from village Jagdev Khurd with a tractor. At that time, his brothers Raghbir Singh P.W. 4 Kuldip Singh P.W. 6 and father Mangal Singh P.W.7 were present in front of their haveli. When Kirpal Singh P.W. was at a distance of about 15 0 feet from the said haveli, Bakhshish Singh and Jaswant Singh accused (since acquitted armed with Kirpans and Gurpal Singh, Balkar Singh Gurmej Singh and Parshotam Singh (since acquitted) armed with a dang each intercepted him. Gurpal Singh accused caught hold of Kirpal Singh by his long hair while the remaining accused who were armed dangs with started giving blows to him with their respective weapons. The accused tried to drag away Kirpal Singh toward their fields. Mangal Singh, Raghbir Singh and Kuldip Singh P.Ws. came at the spot to rescue Kirpal Singh. Gurpal Singh accused gave a Push to Kirpal Singh who fell down. All the accused then be laboured him with their respective weapons. Dakhshish Singh and Jaswant Singh, caused injuries with their respective weapon Mangal Singh PW. Jaswant Singh, Parshotam Singh and Balkar Singh caused injuries to Kuldip Singh with their respective weapons. Parshotam Singh and Gurpal Singh accused caused injuries to Raghbir Singh In the meantime, other persons came to the spot and the accused ran away.

The cause of the above occurrence was that on that day there was an altercation between Bakshhish Singh accused and Kirpal Singh P.W. regarding the flow of water.

After the occurrence, the injured were removed. Jo Civil Hospital, Ajnala, where P.W.2 Dr. K. S. Pathania medically examined Mangal Singh P.W. on the same day at 7.45 p.m., Kirpal Singh P.W. at 8 p.m., Reghbir Singh PW at 8.45 p.m., and Kuldip Singh PW at 8.50 p.m. The said doctor found 7 injuries, 10 injuries, four injuries and four injuries on their persons, respectively. In the opinion of the said doctor, the duration of the injuries was within six hours, After the medical examination of the P.W.s "as over, Dr. Pathania sent their medicolegal reports to Police Station Ajnala.

P.W. Dr. Santosh Kumar had radiologically examined Mangat Singh and Kirpal Singh. He found fracture of the shaft on third metacarpal bone of left hand of Mangal Singh and 3 mm. deep cut on the outer table of skull of Kirpal Singh.

On receipt of the midcolegal reports of the injured. P.W.8 A.S.I. Chaman Lal, who in those days was posted at Police Station Ajnala, went to Civil Hospital Ajnala. Raghbir Singh was found fit to make a statement. The said police officer recorded his statement and same is Ex. PM. He sent that statement to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R. ExPM/2 was recorded by S.I. Niranjan Singh. A.S.I. Chaman Lal also recorded statements of Mangal Singh and Kuldip Singh who were also found fit to do so. He then proceeded to the spot of occurrence and from there took into possession bloodstained earth. He arrested Bakshish Singh, Parshotam Singh, Gurpal Singh, Gurmej Singh, and Balkar Sing) on 3 Ist December, 1979 and Jaswant Singh accused on 29th January, 1980. It may be mentioned here that pursuant to the disclosure statements of Bakshish Singh and Jaswant Singh the said police officer recovered kirpans Ex. P4 and P5, respectively, from the pointed Out places. It is not necessary to dwell upon these recoveries in detail because it is not the prosecution case that those kirpans were found stained with blood. After necessary investigation, the accused were chargesheeted.

All the accused when examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations.

The prosecution version, already given in detail above, has been fully corroborated by P.W.4 Reghbir Singh P.W.5 Kirpal Singh.. P.W.6 Kuldip Singh and P.W.7 Mangat Singh, all of whom received injuries in the occurrence. All these witnesses were crossexamined at length but no infirmity has been pointed out in their statements. It was not urged before me that the occurrence did not take place at the place alleged by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals argued that Bakshish Singh appellant is the father of the remaining appellants and it seems that all the members of his family have been falsely roped. The prosecution has alleged that on that day an altercation had taken place between Kirpal Singh and Bakshish Singh over the flow of water in the fields. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural if Gurpal Singh, Balkar Singh and Gurmej Singh joined their father Bakshish Singh in assaulting Kirpal Singh when he was returning. from village Jagdev Khurd. The remaining injured at that time wore standing in front of their haveli. When they reached the spot to rescue Kirpal Singh, they were also assaulted. It has to be noted that the accused have not put up any counter version. They have adopted the plea of denial simpliciter.

The learned counsel for the appellants. argued that the substantive charge under section 307 Indian Penal Code was framed against. Jaswant Singh for causing a blow with a Kirpan on the head of Kirpal Singh PW and with respect to that injury, the other accused were charged vicariously but the learned trial Court has acquitted Jaswant Singh of that charge and has held that the said injury was caused by Bakshish Singh. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Bakshish Singh could not have been convicted it under section 3(7) Indian Penal Code for the head injury in question of Kirpal Singh because the prosecution witnesses do not attribute that injury to the said accused, I am of the opinion that this argument has force. When the prosecution witnesses have specifically alleged that the injury in question had been caused to Kirpal Singh by Jaswant Singh, the learned trial Court could not hold that the said injury might have been caused by Bakshish Singh who alone among the convicted persons was arm with a kirpan. Hence it is held that Bakshish Singh could not have been convicted for the substantive offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the accused further argued that when Jaswant Singh who was aid to he the author of the head injury of Kirpal Singh had been acquitted, the other accused could not have been convicted with the help of section 4 India Penal Code. This argument has no force, If for some reason, the principal offender is acquitted, his coaccused can nevertheless be convicted with the aid of section 34, Indian Penal Code, because the injury for which the range under section 307, Indian Penal Code was framed did exist (in the person of Kirpal Singh, The matter mould have been different if that injury was nonexistent. The learned trial court acquitted Jaswant Singh after holding his presence doubtful.

Learned Counsel for the accused next argued that when it is found that some of the accused have been falsely implicated, some material should he available on the record which would give tin indication as to which out of the accused had actually participated in the crime before any of the accused could be held guilty. In support his contention he has cited Ram Kunwar (Rani Kumar) & others v. State 1990 P.L.R. 181. The learned trial Court held the participation of Jaswant Singh and Parshotam Singh as doubtful. In the present case there is nothing to doubt the statements of the injured witnesses so Dr as the appellants ate concerned. In the present case four persons were injured. The above injuries on the person of each injured have already been given above. It cannot be the act of two persons as suggested to P.W. 7. Mangal Singh.

The injured P.Ws. could not have made any mistake about the identity of their assailants. Though according to the prosecution witnesses, the occurrence took place at, about 7.00 p.m. but absolute reliance cannot be placed on the time. The Yggish chronometric sense of the countryside community in India is notorious since time is hardly essence of their slow life. P.W. 6 Kuldip Singh has stated that at the time of occurrence there was enough light to make the identification of the assailants possible. Moreover, the assailants were covillagers of the injured P.Ws. and, therefore, they could be recognised even in the dark.

For the foregoing reasons. the conviction of Bakshish Singh appellant is altered from 307 Indian Penal Code to one under section 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Core, but the sentence awarded to him for that offence is maintained. His conviction and sentences for the other offences are also maintained. Cr. Appeal No. 85SB of 1981 is disposed of accordingly.

However, I do not find any force in the present appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 42/SB/1981) filed by Gurpal Singh and others and the same is dismissed.