Jagdev Singh vs State Of Punjab

The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast track Court, Sangrur, vide which the accused/appellant was convicted under Sections 326 and 323 IPC and sentenced as under:-

Under Section

Sentence

326 IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.1,000/-, in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months.

323 IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in brief is that Gurdev Singh got recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A before the police to the effect that on 07.03.2001 at about 6 P.M when he along with his wife Gurmeet Kaur were present inside their house, his 12 years old son Sukhpreet and his neice Samanpreet, daughter of appellant Jagdev Singh, had some quarrel while playing. His niece went and complained to her father i.e. appellant-Jagdev Singh who in turn landed at the complainant's house armed with a gandasi. The complainant tried to pacify the appellant that he would talk to his son but in vain. Instead the appellant inflicted a blow with the gandasi from its sharp side on the left elbow of the complainant. Gurmeet Kaur, wife of the complainant, who was nearby, rushed to the rescue of her husband, but she too was inflicted a blow with the said gandasi on her head by the appellant. The appellant did not stop at that but went on to inflict another blow on the head of the complainant with the gandasi and also caused another gandasi blow on the left arm of Gurmeet Kaur. The complainant managed to snatch the said gandasi from the appellant after which the appellant climbed up the stairs of his house and threw bricks towards the house of the complainant. The appellant while leaving the spot on a tractor tried to run the same over the complainant who then inflicted some injury on the person of the appellant in self defence. Both the complainant and his injured wife Gurmeet Kaur were soon thereafter removed to the Civil Hospital, Malerkotla where they were given medical treatment. On receipt of the ruqa from the Civil Hospital, the police arrived at the hospital and recorded the above statement of the complainant.

After completion of all the requisite formalities and filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the accused was sent up for trial in the court of Sessions where he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven prosecution witnesses and tendered all the relevant documents.

All the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence was put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which were denied by the appellant. He pleaded that the complainant party in order to save themselves from the cross case registered against them had falsely implicated him.

The learned trial Court convicted accused/appellant-Jagdev Singh under Sections 326 and 323 IPC and sentenced him as already detailed above.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant by holding him to be an aggressor. He further argued that the trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the apellant was alone as against the complainant and his wife, who were two in number, and hence in this background it could not have been possible for the appellant to inflict injuries on the complainant and his injured wife. He further argued that the trial Court failed to take note of the injuries which the appellant had suffered in the said occurrence. And lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that since cross cases had been filed by both the complainant and the appellant against each other, the trial Court was in error by deciding both of them vide separate judgments.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, argued that it was a case in which the ocular testimony fully corroborated the medical evidence and the learned trial Court had thus rightly recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State counsel and gone through the evidence and other material on record.

Both the parties, the complainant as well as the appellant, are closely related inasmuch as they are real brothers. As per the prosecution version the occurrence in hand was the result of some trivial quarrel that took place between the children of both the appellant and the complainant.

A perusal of the evidence on record establishes that it was in fact the appellant who had gone to the house of his brother i.e. the complainant to complain and express his annoyance over the fight which had taken place between their children. As per the testimony of both complainant and PW6 Gurmeet Kaur the appellant had come to their house armed with a gandasi. The very fact that the appellant had gone armed with a lethal weapon like gandasi goes a long way to prove his intention to cause injuries on the person of the complainant party. The nature of the injuries fully brings the act of the appellant within the perview of Section 326 IPC.

PW6 Gurmeet Kaur, wife of the complainant, suffered the following injuries:-

i) Lacerated injury 6 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms on the right side scalp region. Fresh blood was oozing out and clotted blood was present. Injury was 9 cms away from right ear pinna. Advised X-ray skull A.P. & lateral view.

ii)Lacerated injury 3 x 1.5 cms on the posterior lateral aspect on upper part of left fore-arm, X-ray was advised.

iii)Contusion red coloured running traverselly 7 x 1.5 cms on the upper part left arm. X-ray was advised for left upper arm including shoulder joint A.P. & laternal view.

The following injuries were found on the person of complainant PW5 Gurdev Singh:-

i) Incised wound 3 x 0.75 cms going inwards, the length of which could not be ascertained on the posterior aspect of left elbow joint. Fresh blood was oozing out. X-ray was advised, left elbow joint. AP & lateral view. As per X-ray report Ex.PW2/A it was a fracture of olecranun without callus.

ii)Lacerated injury 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms on the center of scalp region 12 cm away from left ear pinna. Clotted blood was present. X-ray skull, A.P. Laternal view was advised.

On the basis of X-ray report, injury No.1 on the person of complainant was declared grievous in nature while injury No.2 was declared as simple.

A perusal of the medico-legal reports of both the complainant and his wife injured Gurmeet Kaur coupled with the opinion of the attending Doctor PW1 Dr.Sheetal Jain that the injuries particularly injury No.1 on the person of the complainant was caused with a sharp edged weapon fully corroborates the ocular testimony.

The contention of the defence counsel that the appellant had caused the injuries on the complainant in exercise of right of private defence, in the circumstances and findings on record, does not deserve any merit inasmuch as the occurrence admittedly took place in the house of the complainant where the appellant had gone armed with a gandasi, which fact has not even been disputed in any manner by the appellant. Further the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was the agressor is totally bereft of any merit and does not find support whatsoever from any evidence on record. In fact, it is very strange that on one hand the learned counsel for the appellant tried to make it out to be a case of self-defence and in the same breath the suggestion given to the complainant was that it was in fact a case of free fight. There is not even an iota of evidence much less any circumstance on record to suggest even remotely that the occurrence could have been the result of a free fight.

Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that with regard to the same occurrence, cross cases were registered; one on the statement of the appellant-Jagdev Singh under Sections 307/326/324 IPC and another on the statement of the complainant-Gurdev Singh under Sections 326/324/34 IPC, but the learned trial Court erroneously decided the two cases vide separate judgments which as per the learned counsel for the appellant is patently illegal.

In nutshell, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court should have disposed of the two cases by a single judgment and not by two separate ones is totally devoid of any merit as also against the settled principles of law.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 743 reiterated its earlier view given in Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 Supp SCC 145 wherein it has been held that the same learned Judge in cross cases must dispose of the matters by two separate judgments and in deciding each of the cases, he can rely upon only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically held that the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case as each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case.

In light of the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, are upheld.

Appeal is dismissed.