Jasbir Singh and another vs State of Punjab

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

The revision petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Jasbir Singh aged 22 years and Arvinder Pal Singh aged 15 years. The stand convicted and sentenced as under:

Jasbir Singh

(1) Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months;

(2) Under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for six Months, and

(3) Under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment of six months.

Arvinderpal Singh

(1) Under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and

(2) Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. Another coaccused of the petitioners, namely, Jaswant Singh who was also tried along with the petitioner was given the benefit of doubt by the learned trial Magistrate.

The case of the prosecution in short is that on 24th February, 1983, at about 10 a.m. Vijay Kumar PW4 and Buta Mal PW5 told Ram Singh PW1 and Dharam Pal PW2 that Jasbir Singh petitioner had beaten Buta Mal PW with an iron measure near village Khara Ram Singh PW talked about this matter to Satish Kumar Sharma and Ram Parkash Prabhakar. Satish Kumar and Ram Parkash called both the parties to the shop of Satish Kumar at about 11 a.m. Buta Mal PW and Jaswant Singh father of the petitioner had an exchange of hot words at that shop. At about 12.30 noon the same day these two petitioners and their coaccused came to the shop of Buta Mal. Arvinder Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh were armed with hockeys while Jasbir Singh petitioner was armed with a datar. These persons caused injuries to Ram Singh, Dharam Pal, Buta Mal and Vijay Kumar PWs. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Qadian and were medically examined by Dr. Kamal Jyoti PW5 Ram Singh PW was examined on the same day 1.40 p.m. and was found to have the following injury on his person:

(1) 2.5 cm X .5 cm X 0.75 cm blunt wound on the back half of Scalp in its right half. Profusely bleeding. It was kept under observation for general condition.

On 2nd March, 1983, the injury was declared simple in nature. On the same day at 12.52. p.m. Dharam Pal PW was medically examined and the following injury was found on his person:

(1) 7cm X average 0.5 cm wide X 1.0 cm bone deep incised wound oblique in direction, on the right half of the scalp, front end was touching the hair of forehead. On palpation there was a cut in the bone which was about 4 cm along in the injury''s front half.

The injury was kept under observation. Later on it was declared grievous. in nature. Similarly, Buta Mal was medically examined on the same day at 1.33 p.m. and the following injuries were found on his person:

(1) 6 cm x 4.5 cm. blund diffused contusion on the under and outer side of the left eye, reddish blue in colour, highly tender.

(2) 5 cm x 5 cm diffused contusion with 1 cm abrasion on it on the back of left forearm in its upper half,

(3) 6 cm x 4 cm diffused contusion on the back of the right forearm in its upper half.

All the injuries were simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon. Vijay Kumar PW was also medically examined on the same day at 1.50 p.m. and the following injuries were found on his person:

(1) 1 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm on the back of left forearm just below elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was continuing.

(2) 2 cm x 2 cm abrasion on the front of the right hand thumb just at its root.

(3) 1 cm circular abrasion on front of palm of the right hand on its thenal eminence.

All the injuries were simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon. On the same day at 2 p.m. Jasbir Singh petitioner was medically examined by the same doctor and the following injuries were found on his person :

(1) 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm soft tissue deep incised injury on the front of the right forearm in its upper half. Profusely bleeding.

(2) 5 cm x 4 cm diffused contusion on the front of right forearm just below injury No. 1.

(3) 5 cm x 4 cm diffused contusion on front of the right forearm just above injury No. 1

(4) A diffused contusion 6 cm x 6 cm on the left side of the face in front of the left ear.

All the injuries were declared simple in nature. Injury No. 1 was caused with a sharp edged weapon and the other injuries with a blunt weapon. Arvinderpal Singh petitioner was medically examined by the same doctor on the same day at 2.10 p.m. and the following injuries were found on his person:

(1) 1 cm circular abrasion on the inner border of right foot at the root of the thumb.

(2) Diffused contusion 6 cm x 6 cm on the front of the left knee joint. Reddish brown in colour.

Both the injuries were simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon. First information report Exhibit PA/2 was recorded at Police Station. Qadian, on 24th February, 1983, at about 6.30 p.m. on the basis of statement Exhibit PA of Ram Singh.

The petitioners in their statements under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations. Jasbir Singh petitioner came out with a counter version:

"I am innocent. Actually on 24.2.1983 at 10 a.m. Vijay Kumar and Buta Mal PWs met me at about 10 a.m. and caused injuries to me with the iron measure of cloth near village Khara. On the same day when I and Arvinderpal Singh went near the shop of Satish Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Dharam Pal, Ram Singh, Buta Mal, Subhash and Suresh and Gurbachan Lal came there armed with weapons and accused injuries to us. To save myself I snatched the hockey of Vijay Kumar and caused injuries with to them."

According to the doctor who examined both the parties, the injuries rise on the persons of the petitioners and those of the injured prosecution witnesses are of the same duration. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries, Dr. Kamal Jyoti PW5 opined that there was little possibility of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 the person of Arvinderpal Singh having been self suffered although the possibility of the injuries on the person of Jabir Singh petitioner having been selfsuffered could not be ruled out by the doctor.

The prosecution witnesses are all relation in the sense that three of them, namely, Ram Singh, Dharam Pal and Vijay Kumar are brothers and Buta Mal is their father. The other witnesses, namely, Suresh Kumar, Satish Kumar and Ram Parkash were not examined by the prosecution, so, the presumption would be that had they been examined they would not have supported the prosecution case.

No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution about the injuries suffered by the two petitioners. Mr. H.S. Mattewal has contended that all the witnesses are very closely related and that, therefore, they would certainly be interested in minimizing their own part and exaggerating the part of the petitioner. In this context he has placed reliance on Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1977 CAR 28(SC), wherein it has been held 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 alteration is a very important circumstances from which the court can draw the following inferences:

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 being on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; and

That in a case there is a 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."

In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the case against the petitioner does not stand proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently I give them the benefit of doubt. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT accordingly.