Kartar Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Kartar Singh, his three sons along with Kartar Singh''s brother Nand Singh and his two sons in all seven were convicted under sections 326/325/324/323/148 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, by order dated November 2, 1983. The longest imprisonment was imposed on Joginder Singh for two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine Rs. 250/. On others, the sentence imposed was 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/ each, in default of payment of which, the defaulting accused was sentenced to 2 months rigorous imprisonment. Various terms of sentence imposed under various counts were made concurrent. The accused preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, by his order dated July 18, 1985. The accused have preferred this revision.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on February 11, 1981, at about 7/8 p.m. Bhola Singh PW1 asked his nephew Malkiat Singh and another relation Rup Singh to proceed to the field in order to irrigate the same from the tubewell. Rup Singh and Malkiat Singh started. They were followed by Bhola Singh. When Bhola Singh reached in front of the house of Malkiat Singh, the seven accused petitioners herein, came out of the house of Rajinder Singh petitioner and attacked Bhola Singh. On alarm having been raised by Bhola Singh, his father Godha Singh, Malkiat Singh, and Rup Singh and several ladies of the house dame out in order to save Bhola Singh. The accused persons, however, caused injuries to several of them. Surjit Singh, brother of Bhola Singh, was amongst the relations who came out on hearing the alarm. He informed the panchayat about the occurrence and removed the seven injured persons to theCivil, Hospital, Balthinda, reaching there at 10.30 p.m. The police was informed. The police reached the hospital and after ascertaining fitness of Bhola Singh, recorded his statement at 5 a. m., on the basis of which the present case was registered.

At. the trial, the prosecution examined, Bhola Singh. PW1, Malkiat Singh PW2, Rajwinder Kaur PW3, Gurdev Kaur PW4, Parsin Kaur PW5 and Dalip Kaur PW6. They were all injured in the occurrence. The Investigating Officer and the two doctors who medically examined the injured and took skiagrams were also produced.

The plea of the accused was that there was dispute between the parties with regard to demarcation of the street. The accused had filed a civil suit and had obtained stay against the complainant side. On that very day, they had further obtained demarcation from the Kanungo and certain points had been marked indicating the line of demarcation. At about 9/9.30 p.m. Kartar Singh was woke up by a noise coming from the street. He came out of the house and saw Bhola Singh armed with a Kasoli, his father Godha Singh and his nephew Malkiat Singh armed with Gandasas, Rajwinder Kaur armed with a Takua, Gurdev Kaur carrying a Kasoli and Parsin Kaur carrying a stick. The aforesaid persons mere demolishing the points which had been fixed by the Kanungo in connection with demarcation. Nand Singh accused also came there in the meanwhile and both Kartar Singh and Nand Singh asked the persons of the complainant side not to demolish those points. Bhola Singh etc. opened attack with their respective weapons, causing injuries to Kartar Singh and Nand Singh. Jai Kaur, wife of Nand Singh and Basant Singh also reached there on hearing the noise and witnessed the entire occurrence. Kartar Singh picked up a Takua lying there and caused injuries to Bhola Singh and others in exercise of the right of private defence of person. The accused examined Gurcharan Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Gurjant Singh in defence in support of the above version.

On an evaluation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence plea and convicted and sentenced the accused. as already stated. The appeal filed by the accused remained unsuccessful before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision.

The first contention of Shri A 5. Bakshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, is that the version of the petitioners deserved acceptance. In support of this contention. It was submitted that injuries on the person of Kartar Singh and Nand Singh were not explained by the prosecution. Bhola Singh admitted that at the instance of Kartar Singh demarcation points had been fixed the by Kanungo & Patwari. Bhola Singh also admitted that proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated against Godha Singh etc. and that Kartar Singh had filed a civil suit and had obtained an injunction against them. It was farther submitted that the petitioners having obtained the injunction order, they had no cause of grievance and, therefore, there was no point in their opening any attack on the complainant side. DW1 Gurcharan Singh, it was pointed out, was Sarpanch and he has reported about the version of the accused and it was he who took Kartar Singh and Bhola Singh to the hospital. It was also pointed out that accused other than Kartar Singh and Bhola Singh did not have even a scratch on their person, which was indicative of the fact that they were not present at the time of the occurrence. Learned counsel also submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report was utilised by the prosecution to rope in three sons of Kartar Singh and two sons of Nand Singh.

I have carefully examined the evidence on record in the light of the above contentions of the learned counsel.

I will take up the question of the version of the accused towards the end of this order, because, in the nature of things the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and only because the version of the accused has either not been established beyond reasonable doubt or is not probable or is even false, is no ground to record a conviction of the accused.

The place of occurrence is 13 Kms. from Bathinda. In the occurrence, as many as seven persons were injured on the side of the complainant. It must have caused quite a flutter. The injured were brought to the hospital at Bathinda at 10.00 p.m. and the police was informed. The police received the information and came to the hospital. In the occurrence Bhola Singh suffered three injuries which included two blunt weapon injuries, which were simple in nature, and a sharpedged injury on the left side of the head resulting in fracture on the parietal bone. His father Godha Singh suffered three blunt weapon injuries including fracture of the right side of the parietal bone Rajwinder Kaur, aged 14, daughter of Surjit Singh, suffered one blunt weapon injury of a simple nature. Kuldip Kaur widow of Mara Singh, a deceased brother of Bhola Singh, suffered four blunt weapon injuries Parsin Kaur, widow of another brother of Bhola Singh named Karnail Singh suffered two blunt weapon injuries. Malkiat Singh, nephew of Bhola Singh, suffered one injury with a sharpedged weapon. It was simple in nature. Gurdev Kaur, daughter of Karnail Singh, suffered two blunt weapon injuries, all simple in nature. These witnesses were subjected to a very lengthy and searching cross examination. Their testimony could not be shaken and their testimony was accepted both by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and I have no good reason to take a different view. The explanation for the injuries suffered by two of the accused has been given in general terms by the prosecution. It cannot he expected that the prosecution must produce witnesses to own the particular injuries found on the person of the two accused. Nand Singh accused had two simple injuries with a sharpedged weapon and three blunt weapon injuries including fracture of clavicle shaft of the left side. Kartar Singh, on the other hand, had two sharpedged weapon simple injuries on nonvital parts of the body. A comparison of the nature and number of injuries on the two sides as also the number of persons injured speak for itself as to who opened the attack. The further fact that on the side of the complainant as many as four ladies including a young girl of 14 Rajwinder Kaur PW3 were injured goes a long way to show that the prosecution version is true and the Courts below have taken a correct view of the case. The number of injured and the total of injuries suffered by them as also the nature of the injuries having been suffered by different types of weapon, both sharpedged and blunt, further supports the prosecution case as to the number of persons who took part in the assault on the side of the assailants.

This brings me to a consideration of the contention that the defence version deserved to the accepted. Applying the standard of the defence version being probable as distinguished from the same having been established beyond reasonable doubt, which is required from the prosecution. I do not find that the version put forward by the accused can be accepted. It is highly improbable that if the complainant side wanted to demolish the demarcation points, they would create noise so as to wake up Kartar Singh. On the contrary, they would accomplish their job quietly and stealthily. For demolishing the demarcation points, so many persons would not be required. Ladies would not be venture out at that odd hour in the work of the demolition of demarcation points. It is much more consistent with the probabilities of the case that when Bhola Singh was attacked, his alarm attracted the ladies because the house of Bhola Singh and that of Malkiat Singh etc. are nearby.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence relates to February 1981. The petitioners had undergone the agony of a protracted trial. They are on bail during the pendency of the present revision and they may not, therefore, be sent back to the jail. Having regard to the term of sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court and the fact that for some time the accused remained in custody, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone. The fine is, however, enhanced to Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused will undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment. In the event of the fine being realised, the same shall be paid to the two principal injured Bhola Singh and Godha Singh in equal shares.

The revision is disposed of accordingly.