Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Jagir Singh appellant has come up in appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, under section 326, Indian Penal Code, vide his order dated 18th March, 1983. The learned trial Judge sentenced the appellant to two years `rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under the aforesaid section.

Amar Singh PW 6, brother of the appellant, is the injured person in this case. The appellant and Amar Singh injured PW had a joint tubewell. There was dispute between the two brothers about the turn of water from the tubewell. On 21st June, 1982, at about 5 p.m. Amar Singh PW 6 was going to Gurdwara in the village followed by his another brother Karam Singh PW 5. The injured was confronted by the appellant and his son Balwinder Singh, who were coming from the opposite side. There was exchange of hot words between the injured on the one side and the appellant and his son Balwinder SIngh on the other side. Balwinder Singh is alleged to have caught hold of Amar Singh PW from his long hair and the appellant caused to injuries in the abdomen of Amar Singh PW with a small Kirpan Exhibit P1 which the appellant was wearing in the Gatra.

Amar Singh injured PW was removed to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala by Karam Singh PW 5 where he was medically examined by Dr. Rajinder Mohan PW 2 on 21st June, 1982, at 10.15 p.m. He found the following injuries on his person :

Stab wound with incised margins 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the left flank of abdomen. Injury was kept under observation for surgical opinion for the depth of the wound. Fresh bleeding was present.

Stab wound with incised margins 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the back 4 cm. from the midline at its left. Injury was kept under observation for surgical opinion for the depth. Fresh bleeding was present.

Amar Singh injured PW was operated upon the same day by Dr. Hari Singh PW. 1. According to him, injury No. 1 could endanger life but was not dangerous to life. By expression that injury No. 1 `could endanger life'' he meant that the injury could cause death if there was some infection and by describing it `as not dangerous to life'' he meant that without infection it could not cause death.

The appellant was also examined by Dr. Rajinder Mohan PW 2 on the same day at 11.05 p.m. who found the following injuries on his person :

Lacerated would 3 cm x 0.75 cm on the left temporal region of scalp. Advised Xray.

Lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.25 cm on the back of left forearm.

A reddish contusion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the left knee.

The medicolegal report of Amar Singh PW 6 was sent to Police Station Kotwali Kapurthala.

Head Constable Gopal Chand PW 8 reached the Civil Hospital on 22nd June, 1982 and after learning that Amar Singh injured PW was in the operation Theatre, he recorded the statement of Karam Singh at 10 a.m. Exhibit PG, which was thumb marked by him. He made an endorsement Exhibit PG/1 in the Daily Diary of the Police Station, but the police did not register any case on its basis for reasons but best known to them. However, another statement of Karam Singh PW 5 was recorded by Inspector Puran Singh PW 9 on 2nd July, 1982 which is Exhibit PJ. On the basis of the same, formal FIR Exhibit PJ/2 was recorded at the Police Station. Statement of Amar Singh injured PW was also recorded on the same day i.e. 2nd July, 1982, after he was found fit to make a statement. Inspector Puran Singh PW 9 visited the spot on 2nd July, 1982, prepared rough site plan Exhibit PK of the place of occurrence, arrested the appellant and took into possession Kirpan Exhibit P1.

After due investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial.

When examined under section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant came out with the following version :

"The tubewell belongs to me and the electric connection is also in my name. At the intervention of the Panchayat I allowed Amar Singh to use it without charging anything from him. On the day of occurrence, at the time of occurrence at about 5 p.m. I was irrigating my fields from the tubewell. I was at the tubewell. Amar Singh stopped the irrigation of my field and obstructed the flow of water. I asked him that he should allow me to irrigate my field. He then gave a dang injury on my head and gave two other dang injuries to me. I fell down. Amar Singh caught hold of me from my neck. I thought that he would kill me by throttling. I then took out my small Kirpan from my Gatra and caused him two injuries. I then went to my village. I came to the Hospital at Kapurthala at that very night and got my self medically examined. I remained admitted in the Hospital for four days."

However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

Karam Singh PW 5, Amar Singh injured PW 6 and Mohinder Singh PW 7 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

Mr. G.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant, has contested in the foremost that the First Information Report in the case is delayed for which thee is no plausible explanation given by the prosecution. There is definitely a dispute between the appellant on the one side and his two brothers, namely, Karam Singh and Amar Singh injured on the other side that the PWs. are giving a coloured version of the occurrence, which is belied by the circumstances and that the injuries suffered by the appellant remain unexplained. For these reasons, the learned counsel submits that the version of the defence is more likely and probable or to say the least the case against the appellant does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It is admitted case of both the sides that there was dispute between the two brothers, namely, Amar Singh and the appellant about the turn of water from a tubewell which they jointly owned, and that on 21st June, 1982 at about 5 p.m. there was exchange of some hot words between the two, which resulted in the present occurrence. Amar Singh injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, on the same evening but neither Karam Singh PW 5 nor Mohinder Singh PW 7 went to the Police Station to make a report. Karam Singh PW made a statement about the occurrence on the next day i.e. on 22nd June, 1982, before the Head Constable Gopal Chand but even on the basis of that delayed report no case was registered against the appellant. He has admitted that there was litigation going on between him and the appellant earlier to the present occurrence. The injuries on the person of the appellant have been proved by the prosecution witness itself. No explanation has been given by these witnesses about the injuries found on the person of the appellant. It is not the case of the prosecution that these injuries were selfsuffered by the appellant. The doctor found the injuries of the same duration as the injuries found on the person of Amar Singh PW not even a suggestion has been put to the doctor that the injuries could be selfsuffered. So I have no hesitation in coming to a finding that these injuries were suffered by appellant in this very occurrence, for which no explanation has been given by the PWs; who are definitely interested in the injured and against the appellant.

Mr. G.S. Gandhi has placed reliance on Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar 1977 CAR 28 (SC) wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold as under :

"In a murder case the nonexplanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstances from which the court can draw the following inference :

That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version :

That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; and

That in a case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

Keeping in view the delay in the lodging of the First Information Report, the fact that the injuries found on the person of the appellant have not been explained by the prosecution and that the PWs. by no stretch of imagination can be termed as independent one, the least that can be said is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. The fine, if already paid, would be refunded to him.