Jeet Singh and anr. vs State of Haryana

M.R. Sharma, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th March, 1983, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, by which he convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment each.

Gurnam Singh and Lal Singh appellants are the sons of Jeet Singh appellant. Bhagat Singh who had also been sent up for trial and had been acquitted by the learned trial Judge was also the son of Jeet Singh appellant. The appellant and Bhagat Singh, the acquitted accused, are said to have caused fetal injuries to Surat Singh deceased at about 3.30 p.m. on February 15, 1992, in the fields of village Kakheri.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about 15 acres of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat had been given for cultivation to one Dalip Singh Harijan. The said Dalip Singh decided to shift from that village and agreed to give half the land to Surat Singh deceased and the remaining land to Jeet Singh appellant, but later on he changed his mind and decided to give the entire land to one Tarlok Singh of village Kharkra. The said Tarlok Singh was not allowed to cultivate this land by the village Panchayat and the same was given in equal proportions to the deceased and Jeet Singh appellant. Both the parties had taken possession of the land. The said Tarlok Singh had dispossession Jeet Singh appellant of the land in dispute, whereafter that portion of land was also taken into possession by the deceased. Jeet Singh appellant began to nurse a grudge that the deceased was instrumental through the agency of Tarlok Singh to have him dispossessed of the land.

On February 15, 1982, at about 3.30 p.m. Gurwant Singh P.W. 7, son of the deceased, and Sardul Singh P.W. 9, his relation, as well as the deceased and, were returning from the house of one Mohan Singh after attending "Akhand Path". The deceased was going ahead on a bicycle. The two eyewitnesses were also going on a bicycle about 20 paces behind the deceased. When the deceased reached about 221/4 killas from the Dera of Nishan Singh, Jit Singh appellant armed with Gandasi Exhibit P7, Gurnam Singh appellant armed with barchha Exhibit P5, Lal Singh appellant armed with barchhi Exhibit P4 and bhagat Singh, acquitted accused, armed with Kirpan Exhibit P6 appeared on the scene. Jeet Singh appellant gave a lalkara that the enemy had come and that he be taught a lesson for cultivating his land. Gurnam Singh appellant opened the attack an injury with the handle of the spear in the stomach of the deceased. The deceased fell down from the bicycle. Jeet Singh appellant gave a gandasi blow to the deceased while he lay fallen. This blow hit him on his forehead towards the left side. Lal Singh gave him barachhi blow which hit him in his risk flank. The eyewitnesses raised an alarm, on hearing which the four assailants of the deceased ran away along with respective weapons.

Gurwant Singh PW 7 son of the deceased and Sardul Singh PW 9 put the deceased in a tonga and took him to Primary Health Centre, Guhla, for treatment. No doctor was present there. Dr. Kamlesh Goel, PW 1, Pharmacists, gave some first aid to the deceased and referred him to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for treatment. After lodging the deceased there, Gurwant Singh PW 7 set out for Police Station, Guhla, to lodge the report.

Earlier, Dr. Kamlesh Goel, Pharmacist PW 1 posted at Primary Health centre, Guhla, had sent information to S.H.O Police Station, Guhla, about the arrival of Surat Singh deceased in an injured condition. On receipt of this information S.I. Sandhu Ram PW 12 set out for Primary Health Centre, Guhla. When he got out of the Police Station, he met Gurwant Singh PW 7, who made statement Exhibit P1, before him on the basis of which formal FIR Exhibit PI/1 was lodged at Police Station Guhla, at 6.05 p.m. on 15th February, 1982. Earlier a case under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the appellants and Bhagat Singh, the acquitted accused. The deceased was operated upon, but he could not survive. He breathed his last at 7 a.m. on February 16, 1982. On his death, the case was converted to Section 302/34, of the Indian Penal Code.

The autopsy on the deadbody of Surat Singh was conducted by Dr. Vir Bhan, PW 4, at 5.05 p.m on February 16, 1982. The following injuries were noticed on it :

One incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right chest at the level of 6th rib.

One `F'' shaped stitched wound measuring 7", 9" and 21/2" on the left side of the chest upto ublicus on the left side.

One stitched wound 10" transversely from lateral aspect of chest to the right side of abdomen anteriorly.

One lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" into bone deep just above the left eyebrow.

There was a scar of venesection on the left leg. There was drainage tubes in the stitched wounds.

On the cut section of the scalp, there was huge haematoma on the left frontal temporal region.

On dissection, he found that 4th, 5th and 6th rib on the right side were fractured. Similarly, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on the left side were fractures. Pleura was found crushed. Left lung was stitched at various places. Right lung was healthy. Pericardium was healthy. Organs of the abdomen were healthy except large intestines in which on cut section facial matter was present. Stomach was found empty. Small intestines were also found empty, though both the organs were healthy. Peritoneum on the left side was found crushed.

In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and circulatory failure due to excessive haemorrhage. The injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and were antemortem in nature. According to him, injury No. 2 was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

In the course of investigation, incriminating weapons were recovered from the respective possessions of the accused persons. Gandasi Exhibit P7 said to have been produced by Jeet Singh sustained with human blood. According to the report of the Serologist, the Gandasi was stained with blood of `A'' group, whereas the bloodstained clothes of the deceased were stained with blood of `O'' group. The weapons produced by Gurnam Singh and Lal Singh appellants did not contain sufficient blood to admit of proper analysis.

At the trial, the prosecution relied upon medical evidence as also the ocular version given by Gurwant Singh PW 7 and Sardul Singh PW 9. The learned trial Judge accepted this evidence for convicting and sentencing the appellants, as indicated above.

The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence by way of this appeal. Gurwant Singh complainant, son of the deceased, filed Criminal Revision No. 755 of 1983, for enhancing the sentence and claiming compensation. Both the cases shall be deposed of by his common judgment as they arise out of the same incident.

We have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.

At the outset, it has to be seen whether the matter has been reported to the police with sufficient promptitude or not. The occurrence took place at about 3.30 p.m. on February 15, 1982, whereafter the deceased was carried to Primary Health Centre, Ghula. From there he was taken to Patiala, where he reached at 7.25 p.m. After receiving information about the injuries received by the deceased, S.I. Sandhu Ram, PW 12, recorded the statement of Gurwant Singh at about 5.50 p.m., Police Station Ghula was at a distance of about 12 miles from village Kakheri. These circumstances indicate that there was no delay in lodging of the report.

The evidence constituting motive is available in the statement of Gurwant Singh PW 7 which has hardly been challenged. The learned defence counsel argued that the two eyewitnesses were probably not there. The first submission advanced in this contention is that Gurwant Singh PW 7 was the son of the deceased and Sardul Singh PW 9 was married to the sister of the deceased. It was submitted that if these two witnesses were there, they would certainly have made physical intervention. We do not agree with this submission because as noticed earlier, the appellants were armed with deadly weapons whereas the deceased and the two eyewitnesses were emptyhanded.

It was then submitted that two eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and their help could have been secured by the prosecution at any time. In this contention, we might observe that there was an `Akhand Path'' ceremony at the house of Mehna Singh and on such occasions it is usual for close relations to attend such a ceremony. Accordingly, there was nothing improbable for the two eyewitnesses to be following the deceased on a bicycle.

The learned defence counsel then drew out attention to the statement of Dr. Vir Bhan PW 4, who had conducted autopsy on the deadbody of Surat Singh. The doctor had stated that some ribs of the deceased had been fractured and this could have happened if somebody had pressed the chest of the deceased or sat upon him. Since the two eyewitness did not state that any such treatment had been meted out to the deceased, the learned defence counsel argued that they probably not there. We do not accept this submission either. The deceased was about 60 years old. He was going on a bicycle when the attack was opened on him. When he fell down from the bicycle, some bar or the handle of the bicycle might have caused the fracture. At the age of the deceased the bones do not remain as elastic as those of a youngman.

Last of all, it was argued that the deceased had only received four injuries. The injury attributed to Jeet Singh appellant was a simple one. Injury No. 2 had been attributed to Gurnam Singh appellant and injury No. 3 had been attributed to Lal Singh appellant. But these injuries could be individually fatal. Jeet Singh appellant did not repeat any blow. In view of the close connection of the two eyewitnesses with the deceased as also the earlier enmity between Gurwant Singh PW 7 and the appellants, it was submitted that the eyewitnesses could probably have exaggerated matters to rope in as many persons as we possible. We find some force in this submission. Bhagat Singh accused has already been acquitted. The injury attributed to Jeet Singh appellant could have been caused by other of the two appellants, namely Gurnam Singh and Lal Singh. We have already noticed that Gandasi Exhibit P7 recovered at the instance of Jeet Singh appellant was besmeared with a different type of blood. This is, of course, not a conclusive circumstance because this appellant could have washed the earlier blood on the Gandasi and could have besmeared it with a different type of blood for putting the prosecution on the wrong track. But in view of the distinctions brought to our notice by the learned defence counsel, we feel it would be safe to give benefit of doubt to Jeet Singh appellant. We order accordingly. The appeal qua him is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge. There is no merit in the appeal qua Gurnam and Lal Singh appellants, which is hereby dismissed.

Since the trouble arose because Jeet Singh appellant had been deprived of land, we are not inclined to grant any compensation to the next heirs of the deceased. Crl. Revision No. 755 of 1983 is accordingly dismissed.