Kaur Singh Kundha Singh vs The State

Gurnam Singh, J.—Kaur Singh, Appellant, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bhatinda u/s 304(ii), Penal Code and given a sentence of five years'' rigorous imprisonment. He was challaned along with Partap Singh, Hazura Singh, Ajmer Singh and Inder Singh for the murder of Puran Singh. Inder Singh accused died during the pendency of the trial. The other co-accused Partap Singh, Hazura Singb and Ajmer Singh were also convicted but they have not preferred any appeal. It is only Kaur Singh, the present Appellant who has come upon appeal to this Court.

The allegations of the prosecution are that on 31-3-49/19-12-2005 at about 7 or 8 A.M. when Jagar Singh P.W. 1 was returning from the fields after easing himself, he met Kahla Singh on the way under the neem tree. There was altercation between Kahla Singh and Jagar Singh P.Ws. in connection with the previous incident which happened on the preceding night. Both Kahla Singh and Jagar Singh P.Ws. shouted for help. On hearing Jagar Singh P.W., Puran Singh deceased, and Chand Singh P.W. came armed with danga to the spot where Kahla Singh and Jagar Singh were altercating. On the other side on hearing shout of Kahla Singh, came the present Appellant along with Partap Singh, Hazura Singh, Ajmer Singh and Inder Singh (now dead). Out of them, Hazura Singh and Ajmer Singh were armed with dangs, Partap Singh and Kaur Singh Appellant had spears. About Inder Singh, the deceased accused, there is conflict of evidence. Some witnesses say that he had a dang. The Ors. state that he was empty handed. On reaching there, Hazura Singh, the co-accused of the Appellant, inflicted a lathi-blow on the head of Jagar Singh, on the receipt of which the latter fell down. Then Partap Singh, Anr. co-accused, speared Jagar Singh P.W. in the right thigh. Puran Singh deceased at this stage intervened to save his brother Jagar Singh. Kaur Singh, the Appellant, then struck him with his spear into his right chest, Ajmer Singh, Anr. co-accused, hit the deceased with a lathi which fell on his right cheek. This was after the accused (deceased?) had fallen down. Partap Singh, Anr. co-accused, then struck a spear blow on the right chest of the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Hakam Singh P.W. 6, Isher Singh P.W. 7 and Chand Singh P.W. 10 in addition to Jagar Singh P.W. 1. After this the culprits left the spot and ran away. Puran Singh, in an injured condition was removed to his house by Hakam Singh, Isher Singh, Chand Singh and Jagar Singh P.Ws. Half an hour later, Puran Singh died. After this Munshi Singh lambardar of the village was informed about this incident by Chand Singh P.W. and one Sarwan Singh. On getting this information, Munshi Singh went to the house of the deceased. Then this Munshi Singh, one Nand Singh P.W. and some members of the Home Guard went in pursuit of the culprits and actually succeeded in arresting Kaur Singh, Appellant, Partap Singh and Inder Singh. This arrest was effected on the same before noon. At the time of arrest of Inder Singh he was found in an injured condition. Neither the lambardars of the village, nor anybody else including the complainant, went to the police station to make the report about this incident. Inder Singh, S.H.O. of Police Station Sardulgarh, happened to visit the village of the parties same evening at about 5 P.M. He is alleged to be on patrol duty. It was then that Jagar Singh P.W. 1 made a statement to him which is the F.I.R. in this case. After recording his statement, the Sub-Inspector sent it to Police Station Sirdulgarh situate at a distance of 7 miles from the spot. The case was registered there on the basis of this statement at 8-30 P.M. on the same day. Jagar Singh states that he did not go to lodge the report out of fear of the culprits.

The Sub-Inspector started his investigation. He prepared an inquest report and sent the dead body of Puran Singh to Mansa Hospital for the purposes of post-mortem examination. He then visited the house of Inder Singh accused and found him injured. The Investigating Officer prepared his injury statement. Jagar Singh P.W. 1 had also injuries on his person. Both Inder Singh accused (deceased) and Jagar Singh were medically examined at the instance of the police. The Sub-Inspector formally arrested Partap Singh, Kaur Singh and Inder Singh accused in the village on the same day, but he could not trace Ajmer Singh and Hazura Singh accused. Partap Singh accused had produced spear and Kaur Singh Appellant had produced a broken dang before the police. They are Exs. P-1 and P-2 respectively. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of wit-nesses and also inspected the spot. On 1-4-1949, Dr. Bhagwant Singh M.B.B.S., Medical Officer Mansa, held the post mortem examination on the body of Puran Singh deceased. He found the following injuries on his person: (1) Abrasion 1 x 3/4" on the right cheek, (2) Stab contused wound 1/2" x 1/2" going forward and inward on outer aspect of right chest upper part. (3) Out wound 2" x 1/8" into skin deep across upper part of chest in middle.

Injury No. 1 was the result of a blunt weapon, No. 2 was the result of a sharp pointed weapon and No. 3 was caused by a sharp edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to perforated injury of right lung by a blunt weapon. Injury No. 3, as opined his, the doctor, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On the same day, the same doctor examined Jagar Singh P.W. and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Contused wound 1/2" x 1/12" skin deep on left parietal region. (2) Abrasion 2" x 1/12" longitudinally on front of right thigh upper part.

Both injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were Blight in nature. Their duration at the time of the examination was about 24 hours.

This doctor also examined Inder Singh accused, now dead, on the same day and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Cut wound 3/4" x 1/12" mucous membrane deep at left angle of mouth lower part. This wound was partly on the upper surface of the left lower lip near angle of mouth. (2) Bruise 1" x 1" on left and upper part of neck. Injury No. 1 was the result of a sharp edged weapon and No. 2 was caused by a blunt weapon.

This doctor, however, could not find the true nature of the injury in the mouth of Inder Singh accused. In fact, nobody treated his injury to be so serious as it actually was. Inder Singh died in the judicial lock-up at Bhatinda on 11-1-2006. His body was then sent for postmortem examination which was done by Dr. Amar Singh, Civil Surgeon Kapurthala, who was then an Assistant Civil Surgeon at Bhatinda. This doctor conducted the post mortem examination in the hospital on 12-1-2006. At the time of this examination, he did not find any mark of injury on external examination, but on internal examination a cut wound 1 1/4" x 1/2" was found on right side of mouth cavity going to the nook. The doctor opined that the probable cause of death was sceptic poisoning due to deep abcess of right side of neck. In the opinion of this doctor, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This injury, according to him, could be caused by a sharp pointed weapon. The deceased, according to him, was admitted in the hospital on 6-1-2006 from the judicial look-up. This injury could not be detected at the time of his admission as there was no external sign. The injury was not the result of a fall or as a result of the lips coming in between the teeth.

The motive for this incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is that one Ghila, nephew of Jagar Singh P.W. 1, had entered to commit an offence in the house of Hazura Singh sometime previous to this incident. This incident, according to prosecution''s own evidence, was amicably settled. The prosecution further alleges that a day previous to the present incident Jagar Singh P.W. 1 along with Ghila and Ors. had gone to attend a fair at Jhuneer. On their return at about sunset time, Puran Singh deceased, was accompanying Jagar Singh P.W., wanted to pass through the lane in which the house of the accused is situated. Kaur Singh Appellant stopped him from passing through that lane. There was some altercation and exchange of brick bats between the parties, in which Chand Singh & Jagar Singh P.Ws. and Puran Singh deceased took part on one side and the Appellant and his co-accused took part on the other side Nand Singh and Munshi Singh lambardars intervened and stopped the parties from creating further trouble. It was due to these incidents, it is alleged, that the murder of Puran Singh was committed.

The Appellant was examined by the trial Court. He simply denies having committed the offence and states that the case against him is false due to enmity with the witnesses. The Appellant has produced no defence except that he put in Dr. Amar Singh Civil Surgeon as DW 1 to prove the result of post mortem examination held by him on the body of Inder Singh, his co-accused.

The Appellant is related with all the other co-accused Kaur Singh Appellant and Hazura Singh are real brOrs. . Ajmer Singh accused and Inder Singh accused (deceased) are cousins. Inder Singh''s father and the Appellant''s grandfather were real brOrs. . Thus, it is clear that the Appellant and his co-accused are very closely related.

On the side of the prosecution, Jagar Singh P.W. 1 is the brother of Puran Singh deceased, Chand Singh P W. 10 is the first cousin of the deceased. Isher Singh P.W. 7 is the collateral of the deceased in third or fourth degree. Hakam Singh P.W. 6 is not related to the complainant, but it is admitted by Munshi Singh P.W. 8 that he belongs to the complainant party. It is, therefore, clear that all the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution are interested in the complainant party. All of them are inter-related with the exception of Hakam Singh, who belongs to their party.

The prosecution relies on the following types of evidence: (1) Motive; (2) Eye-witness corroborated by the statements of P.W. 8 Munshi Singh and P.W. 9 Nand Singh who were informed about the incident soon after the occurrence; (3) Recovery of a broken dang at the instance of the Appellant; and (4) Medical evidence.

Motive - The first incident of Ghila''s entry into the house of Hazura Singh complainant took place a month previous to this incident. It was, according to the prosecution evidence, amicably settled. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any altercation due to this took place between the parties in the interval. This, therefore, could not be the motive for this incident. The second incident happened a night previous to the present occurrence. In this brick-bats were exchanged between the parties. According to the prosecution evidence, the aggression for this incident was from the side of the accused party. If this is so, the accused could not nurture any grudge against the complainant. It would rather be the complainant who would be aggrieved and like to take action at the earliest opportunity. This is indeed the finding of the trial Court and I agree with this finding. I, therefore, hold that the accused party had no motive to assault the deceased on account of this incident alone.

Eye-witnesses - The occurrence in this case, according to the prosecution, took place at about 7 or 8 in the morning. The police station is situate at a distance of 7 miles from the spot. The complainant did not attempt to make a report to the police station. The explanation given by the complainant for not making the report is, in my opinion, not satisfactory. Three of the accused had already been arrested. It was day time. There could be no danger from the accused party to the complainant proceeding to the police station. Even the lambardars of the village did not make as attempt to go to the police station, Munshi Singh lambardar and Nand Singh P.W. 9 could have no danger from the accused side if they had proceeded to make the report. In fact, it was also Munshi Singh''s duty as a lambardar to report the incident to the police if he really came to know of it at or about the time as alleged by prosecution. Moreover, it is in evidence of the prosecution that there are armed home guards in the village. In fact, these armed men had effected the arrest of the culprits. Under these circumstances, I do not think that the explanation offered by the prosecution for not proceeding to the police station is genuine. It appears to me that the complainants were conscious of their own fault and it was, therefore, that they were avoiding to report the matter to the police. It is a curious coincidence that the Sub-Inspector by chance arrived in the village the same day the incident occurred. In any case the report was registered at 8-30 P.M. There was ample time for the complainants to carve out a story by the time the report was recorded. Therefore, this belated F.I.R. loses its usual importance. (His Lordship examining the evidence of eye witnesses held it as unsatisfactory and proceeded.)

It, therefore, needs some sort of corroboration to prove the guilt of the Appellant. It was pointed out to me by the learned Advocate General during the arguments that Munshi Singh and Nand Singh are the two witnesses who corroborate the incident as it was narrated to them shortly after the occurrence. I have gone through their evidence. They do not corroborate the incident at all. Their evidence is only to the effect that the incident was reported to them. They further state that the same incident was also reported at about the same time by the accused side. They do not give any version of the incident which was narrated to them by the informer. Their evidence, therefore, does not corroborate the version given by the eye witnesses. Their evidence only amounts to this that some fight occurred between the parties.

It is clear that Inder Singh received his injury during the fight. The prosecution witnesses, for the reasons boat known to themselves, are concealing the true facts of the incident. Under the circumstances it is not possible for me to ascertain with certainty the origin of the fight, nor it is possible to apportion the liability and decide as to who started the fight and who acted in self-defence. The conduct of the complainant after the incident shows that they were conscious of their own faults and did not go to the police station to make a report. All these circumstances of the case indicate that the fight occurred between the parties, during the course of which the injuries were received by both parties. From the F.I.R. it appears that Chand Singh and Puran Singh deceased first went to the spot armed with dangs. It may be that they opened the attack on Inder Singh. It is clear from the evidence of Isher Singh P.W. 7 that Inder Singh was empty handed. If this was the case, the Appellant and his companions could go to the rescue of Inder Singh. It may be noted that one of the injuries on the person of Inder Singh was very serious and was evidently caused with a sharp-edged pointed weapon. The prosecution does not tell us as to who out of their party was armed with such a weapon.

Medical evidence - The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution story. Jagar Singh P.W. as already mentioned, admitted in the F.I.R. that only Chand Singh and Puran Singh deceased were armed with dangs. Later on this position was also given up by him. However, I find that one of the injuries on Inder Singh is with a sharp-edged pointed weapon. To this extent at least these witnesses are not telling the truth, Again, take the case of Jagar Singh P.W. himself. He has stated that Partap Singh pierced his thigh with a spear. But I find from the evidence of the doctor that there is a small abrasion on his right thigh, which according to the doctor is the result of either a blunt weapon or a pointed weapon. The prosecution did not attempt to make it clear from the doctor as to whether the injury could be caused with a spear. They also did not make it clear from the doctor whether by a pointed weapon he meant a blunt-pointed weapon. I have seen the nature of the injury and in my opinion it could not be caused by a sharp pointed weapon. It is an abrasion. It may be mentioned that on the previous night there was exchange of brickbats between the parties. It looks probable to me that the injuries on Jagar Singh P.W. are the result of brick-bat throwing.

On the person of the deceased, there are three types of injuries No. 1 is a small abrasion. This could have been caused even by a fall on the ground No. 2 is a stab wound and No. 3 is a superficial cut. According to the prosecution, both the assailants were armed with sharp pointed weapons. This is contradicted by the nature of injury No. 3. This discussion clearly shows that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution version to the full extent.

Recovery. - The recovery of a broken dang at the instance of the Appellant is really of no consequence. He is alleged to have been armed with a sharp pointed weapon at the time of the incident. This recovery rather contradicts the prosecution story. If he was really armed with such a weapon and if be was so good as to produce the broken piece of dang, why did he not produce the spear-head. Moreover, there is no evidence that this dang was blood-stained.

The learned trial Court has convicted the accused u/s 304(ii), Penal Code, on his individual responsibility. Only one injury on the person of the deceased proved fatal. The other two injuries are superficial. The fatal injury, according to the trial Court, was caused by the present Appellant. I have been taken through the evidence of the eye-witnesses by the learned Advocate General, He has frankly conceded before me that the fatal injury cannot be definitely assigned to the Appellant. It is, therefore, really not known as to who caused this injury. If I was to follow the trial Court''s judgment, the accused would be guilty u/s 324, Penal Code. However, I am not entering into the discussion of offence, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the prosecution evidence.

As already mentioned, Inder Singh died as a result of injuries in this fight. The prosecution have not given the true facts of this case. If the appeal is accepted it is due to their own responsibility. In such a case, where the evidence is so interested, so inimical and so unsatisfactory, it is not possible to uphold the conviction of the Appellant. I, therefore, allow this appeal and order the acquittal of the accused. The accused be informed through the jail authorities.

Partap Singh, Hazura Singh and Ajmer Singh were convicted of minor offences. They did not come up in appeal. Their case has, however, come to my notice through this appeal. In view of the fact that I have ordered the acquittal of Kaur Singh Appellant, I take this action suo motu and set aside the convictions land sentences of all these three persons. They be informed of this order through the Sessions Judge of Bhatinda. The fine, if paid by Hazura Singh and Ajmer Singh, be refunded to them.

Before leaving this judgment I would like to mention one more fact. It is a pity that Inder Singh''s life was lost due to carelessness of the police. With such a serious injury he was kept in the judicial lock-up. His place really was in the hospital and be could be detained under guard. If this was done, possibly his life might have been saved. Inder Singh was always complaining about this injury, but nobody took serious notice of it. The police officers should be that injured accused gat proper medical treatment. This should be brought to the notice of the Government for appropriate action and future guidance of the police officers.