Joginder Singh and others vs State of Punjab

M.R. Sharma, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1982 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :

Joginder Singh U/s 148 I.P.C. R.I. for six months each.

Gurmit Singh,

Baldev Singh,

Jit Singh alias U/s 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ each or in default of its payment to the default to undergo further R.I. for one year.

Ajit Singh and

Kulwant Singh

appellants.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of all the appellants were, however, ordered to run on concurrently.

Half of the amount of fine, if recovered, was also ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of Budh Singh deceased as compensation.

The case of prosecutions as unfolded in the first information report Ex. PH lodged by Sujan Singh PW 3 brotherinlaw of Budh Singh deceased, at 10.40 P.M. on 27.5.1981 at Police Station, Dharamkot, may briefly be summarised as under. On the fateful day, Sujan Singh PW 3 and Budh Singh deceased had gone to Dharamkot to make some purchases of household articles. In the evening they met Bohar Singh PW 9 whow offered them a 1 ft. in his tractor for going back to their village Kot Sadar Khan. Thereafter Gurmej Singh son of Arjan Singh Jat, resident of their village also met them. At about 9.45 P.M. all the four left for their village from Dharamkot on the tractor of Budh Singh. Bohar Singh P.W. 9 was driving the tractor. Budh Singh deceased was sitting behind his side and Sujan Singh PW 3 and Gurmej Singh were sitting behind in the trolley. When they were at a distance of one furlong from the power house of Dharamkot, they saw a tempo parked on the road. In the headlights of the teractor they saw Joginder Singh appellant armed with a gandasa Ex. P. 3 Baldev Singh appellant armed with a dang Ex. P. 1, Gurmit Singh appellant armed with a dang Ex. P. 2, Jit Singh alias Ajit Singh appellant armed with a gandasa Ex. P. 4 and Kulwant Singh appellant armed with a dang standing on the road. They stepped forward and encircled the tractor. Joginder Singh appellant raised a lalkara that Budh Singh deceased had got him suspended from the post of Sarpanch and he should, therefore, be taught a lesson. On hearing this lalkara, Sujan Singh PW 3 and Bohar Singh PW 9 also got down from the tractor. In the meantime Baldev Singh appellant dealt a dang blow on the head of Budh Singh deceased. Gurmit Singh appellant also dealt a dang blow on the right side of his head and he (Budh Singh deceased) fell down. While he lay fallen, Joginder Singh appellant dealt a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his right leg. Jit Singh alias Ajit Singh appellant gave a dang blow on his right flak. Kulwant Sigh appellant gave a dang blow on his right flank. Joginder Singh appellant again gave another gandasa blow on the front side of his right thigh. Jit Singh appellant alias Ajit Singh gave two gandasa blows on his right leg. Baldev Singh appellant gave two dang blows on his right eye and inside the right arm. Gurmit Singh appellant gave four dang blows on his right leg, right ankle and right knee. Kulwant Singh appellant gave two dang blow on the right side of his back. Sujan Singh PW 3 and Bohar Singh P.W. 9 raised an alarm. "na maro, na maro". The appellants, however, continued inflicting some more injuries on the deceased. Thereafter, they all ran away in the tempo of Kulwant Singh appellant along with their respective weapons. The deceased was put in the same tractor and taken to the Civil Hospital at Dharamkot.

At the said Hospital, Budh Singh deceased was examined in an injured condition by Dr. Roshan Lal Taneja P.W. 1 at 11 P.M. on 27.5.1981, who found as many as 16 injuries on his person. Five of them were in used wounds and eleven of them were caused by bluntedged weapons. Injures Nos. 1 and 2 which were declared to be fatal were described by the Doctor as under :

Injury No. 1.

A lacerated wound of about 15 cm X 7 cm on the right side of the scalp in the parietal areas and the adjoining area of temporal region. The would was bone deep and the underlying bone was committed fracture. Fresh bleeding was present.

Injury No. 2.

A lacerated wound of about 2.5 cm X 1 cm on the parietal area of scalp. The wound was about 2 cm away from injury No. 1. The wound was bone deed. Fresh bleeding was present.

Since the condition of the deceased was precarious, the said Doctor advised Sujan Singh P.W. 3 to take him to the C.M.C. Hospital Ludhiana. At the said Hospital, Budh Singh was declared to be dead. From there, the party returned to the house of the deceased.

After leaving the deceased at the Civil Hospital, Dharamkot, in an injured condition Sujan Singh P.W. 3 had gone to Police Station, Dharamkot, where he lodged the first information report Ex. PH at 10.40 P.M. On the basis of this report, originally a case under Sections 307/149/148, I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons. The deceased breathed his last about 4.10 A. M. on 28.5.1981 whereupon the case was converted into one of murder. The special report was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Zira, at 7 A. M.

At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the statements made by Sujan Singh P.W. 3 and Boha Singh P.W. 9, which according to the learned trial Judge were amply corroborated by the medical evidence. This evidence was considered sufficient by the learned trial Judge for convicting and sentencing the appellants as indicated earlier.

In this appeal by the convicts, we have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.

The principal thing which strikes the eye is that even though the occurrence took place at 10 P. M. The report was lodged at Police Station Dharamkot, at 10.40 P. M. The special report was in the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Zira, at about 7 A. M. These circumstances indicate that the incident was reported to the police at the earliest. During this short interval there was hardly any time for the prosecution witnesses to coin out a false version.

The others circumstances which has impressed us considerably is the presence of Bohar Singh P.W. 9 which was noticed by Dr. Roshan Lal Taneja P.W. 1 in the Civil Dispensary at Dharamkot at about 11 P. M. on 27.5.1981. When the deceased was taken there in a tractor in an injured condition. This shows that Bohar Singh P.W. 9 probably present at the time of the occurrence. Both the eyewitnesses have deposed to the facts mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. There are hardly any discrepancies in their statements. Even though Sujan Singh P.W. 3 is closely related to the deceased, yet Bohar Singh P.W. 9 can be regarded as an independent witness.

The learned defence counsel vehemently criticised the ocular version on the ground witnesses could not have identified the assailants of the deceased when the lights of the tempo and the tractor were on in opposite direction. He further submitted that even if the accused persons had been identified, the two eyewintnesses at that hour of the night could not have given meticulous details of the attack. Lastly, he argued that two eyewitness had no business to carry the dead body of the deceased back to his home instead of allowing it to remain at C.M.C. Hospital at Ludhiana.

We are not impressed with this criticism. The light emitted by the headlights of a motorvehicle depends upon the strength of its battery and the angle at which the headlights of a vehicle are adjusted. It the battery of the tractor was powerful then it was quite possible for the witnesses to identify the appellants of the deceased. Secondly, the tractor must have stopped at some distance from the tempo parked in the middle of the road with its headlight on. It is also in evidence that the appellant had surrounded the tractor. The deceased might have alighted the tractor and come in front or might have come in that portion of the road which had been covered by the light. In that situation the witnesses could have noticed the blows being given. Last of all, since the police had already been informed at Dharamkot and the deceased had been proclaimed dead at C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, Sujan Singh P.W. 3 might have thought it proper to take the deadbody of the deceased to his residence because keeping it in the C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana would not served any useful purpose. We are accordingly of the view that the ocular version given by the two eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out only on the basis of the aforementioned criticism levelled by the learned defence counsel.

We, however, feel that so far as Kulwant Singh appellant is concerned, there is some scope for giving him benefit of doubt. The remaining appellants are closely related in as much as Baldev Singh appellant is the son of Joginder Singh appellant. Joginder Singh appellant is the son of said Gujjar Singh and Jit Singh alias Ajit Singh appellant is the grandson of the said Gujjar Singh. Kulwant Singh appellant is stated to be their party man. He was the owner/driver of the tempo. One of his leg is stated to have been amputaled below the knee. It is doubtful whether he could have actively participated in the assault. This consideration apart there is some tendency on the part of the witnesses to indulge in exaggerations and this appellant might have been involved because the other appellants came in his tempo and after the occurrence ran away from the place of the occurrence again in the same tempo. We, therefore, give him the benefit of doubt allow the appeal qua him. He is acquitted of the charge. The fine if already paid by him shall be returned to him.

Qua the other appellants their conviction is altered to one under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code but the sentences of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/ each and imprisonment in default of payment of fine is maintained. They are acquitted of the charge under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. The total fine if realised, shall be paid to the next heirs of Budh Singh deceased as compensations.

JUDGMENT accordingly.