Joginder Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This revision arises out of the conviction of the petitioners on the basis of a complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh for causing injuries to him on 19.8.1984.

The facts are that the petitioners alongwith their coaccused, armed with gandasis and lathis, went towards the complainant Harbhajan Singh who was working in his fields and started abusing him in the names of mother and sisters. They threatened the complainant that they would get the possession of the maize crop standing in the land. The complainant resisted their demand and said that he would not permit them to enter the fields. Joginder Singh, accusedpetitioner, raised a lalkara that the complainant be finished. Thereafter, Joginder Singh, who was holding a lathi gave an injury on the left shoulder of the complainant. He further gave a number of lathi blows on the various parts of his body. Joga Singh and Major Singh, accused, gave blows on the right hand and right leg of the complainant. Gurmit Singh accused caused injuries on the right cheek and head of the complainant. Kashmir Singh accused gave a gandasi blow on his left eyebrow. The occurrence was witness by Mohan Singh, Balbir Singh and Baldev Singh, PWs. The complainant Harbhajan Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar, where his medicolegal examination was conducted. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. Consequently, a complaint was lodged. The accused were summoned, tried and convicted by the Magistrate. Their appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Hence, this revision in this Court.

The motive for the occurrence is that the accused party kept 6 kanals of land out of the land of the father of the complainant after his death. They were not willing to pay even the batai for that. The complainant got the land vacated with the help of the respectables a few months prior to the occurrence. On that score, the accusedparty was nursing illwill against the complainant. The parties are collaterals.

I have gone through the evidence and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In this case, the incident took place on 19.8.1984 at 7.00 p.m. whereas the complaint was lodged on 6.9.1984. So, there is a delay of 18 days in lodging of the complaint. Kashmir Singh alias Jasbir Singh, accusedpetitioner, was medicolegally examined at 9.45 p.m. on 19.8.1984 whereas the complainant Harbhajan Singh was examined at 11.00 p.m. on that day. Both of them were examined by Dr. D.S. Virk PW 1 of Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar. The following four injuries were found on the person of Kashmir Singh alias Jasbir Singh, accused petitioner :

(1) 2" incised wound around the radial side of left index finger, at the level of metacorpo phalangeal joint, actively bleeding; wound was bone deep. Loss of sensation on radial side of index finger was present. Wound stitching was done. Xray was advised. Movements of finger were painful and restrictive.

(2) "x2 mm. incised wound over left little finger opposite proximal phalangeal area; movements of finger restrictive; active bleeding was present on exploration. Wound was covered with fresh blood clot. Xray was advised and stitching of wound was done.

(3) 1" x 3 mm. incised wound subcutaneous deep, over ventral aspect of fistal, 1/3rd of right forearm. Bleeds on touch, covered with fresh blood clot. Stitching of wound was done.

(4) Abrasion 2" x 2 cms. over volar aspect of distal 1/3rd of left forearm, covered with fresh blood clot.

According to Dr. D.S. Virk, PW1 Harbhajan Singh, injured complainant, was brought to the hospital by Gurmit Singh, brother of Jasbir Singh accused. In this view of the situation, when both the accused and the complainant were taken to the same hospital and they were examined by the same doctor, it cannot be said that the complainant Harbhajan Singh was unaware of the injuries on the person of the accused. When he filed the complaint 18 days after the occurrence, still he made no mention of the injuries on the person of the accused. In his statement in the Court, he stated that he did not inflict any injury to the accused, as he was empty handed. The nature of the injuries on the person of Kashmir Singh alias Jasbir Singh, accusedpetitioner, clearly shows that they cannot be selfsuffered. The duration and other circumstances clearly show that both the complainant and the accusedpetitioner suffered injuries at the same time. Nonexplanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the complainant is a circumstance which casts doubt on the veracity of his case. This circumstance, when seen in the light of the delay of 18 days in filing of the complaint, makes the whole case doubtful.

The explanation for the delay, furnished by the complainant Harbhajan Singh is not at all satisfactory. According to the averments in the complaint, the incident was narrated to the local police by the complainant''s brother. In his statement as PW 2, the complainant stated that his brother came to him in the hospital on the next day and that he told him that he has informed the police of the incident. It is further stated by him that ASI Onkar Singh came to him in the hospital but he did not record his statement. His brother Baldev Singh was examined as PW 3. He disowned this and stated that he never reported the matter to the police. The denial of Baldev Singh PW 3 clearly suggests that no information was given to the police of the incident. So, the version came to light only 18 days after the incident and, in that version also, the injuries on the person of the accused were not explained, which were obviously to the knowledge of the complainant. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained. They are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The revision is allowed, the judgments of the Courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioners, are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges.