Labh Singh and others vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—Labh Singh aged 20 years, Gurdev Singh aged 35 years and Major Singh aged 18 years stand convicted u/s 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution stroy in brief is that Ujagar Singh (P.W. 1), who is unmarried, belongs to village Mangewal. He is joint with his deceased elder brother Magher Singh''s sons Bhajan Singh, Kaur Singh injured (P.W. 2) and Kaka Singh. Bhajan Singh is married. Their land bearing Khasra Nos. 406 and 407 is situate inside the village Phirni. During the days of this occurrence they cultivated maize crop in an area of about l� bighas while ohari crop in an area of about 2� bighas in the said land. The village he buffaloes and other cattle used to trespass in their land and damage the crops. Kaur Singh used to sleep there during the night time to guard against the same. He used to go there at about 8 or 9 P.M. and return from there at about 5 A.M. next morning. The land of Banta Singh was taken on lease by Gurdev Singh and Tota Singh, father of Labh Singh accused. They asked Kaur Singh for irrigation of that land from their tubewell but he declined their request. Labh Singh had suspicion against Kaur Singh P.W. for his having illicit liaison with his younger sister.

The prosecution story goes that on the night intervening 4.5/9/1974 at about to 10 P.M., Kaur Singh went to his land, where chari and maize crop had been cultivated, for sleeping. He spread his cot in between the plots of those crops. Fifteen minutes thereafter, he heard some sound whereupon he thought that the village he buffalo had come. He got up and shouted out but he did not find he buffalo there. He again lay on the bad. While he was yet semi-asleep, he heard sound and saw in the moon light all the accused standing near by him holding their gandasas. They challenged Kaur Singh to move by remarking that he was considering himself saand. He entreated to them by extending his left hand to spare him but Major Singh and Gurdev Singh opened the attack by giving gandasa blows to him. When he tried to ward off the blows by raising his left hand he sustained some injuries on his left hand and head He became unconscious on receipt of the injuries. When Knur Singh did not return to his house on following morning, his uncle Ujagar Singh went to his land to enquire about the cause of his not coming back. He found Kaur Singh lying injured and in unconscious condition on his cot. Ujagar Singh returned to the village and informed his brother Soudagar Singh regarding that incident, Kaur Singh was removed to Civil Hospital Barnala in a tractor-trolly where he was admitted at about 9.30 A.M.

Dr. B.L. Jindal, who medically examined Kaur Singh at about 10 A.M. on 5-9-1974, found as many as 11 injuries on his person. The injuries were stated to be the result of sharp weapon caused within a duration of 24 hours. The injured was comatoss and did not respond to call. He moved his limbs occasionally in vague fashion. On receipt of ruqa Exhibit P.B. from the doctor Assistant sub-Inspector Bakhsish Singh went to the hospital at about 10 A.M. The injured was lying unconscious in the operation theatre. He recorded the statement Exhibit P.A. of Ujagar Singh which formed the basis of first information report P. A./2. the Assistant Sub Inspector went to the spot and prepared its visual plan Exhibit P.N. and look into posession blood-stained earth from underneath the cot lying at the spot Kaur Singh was declared fit to make a statement on 29-9-1974 and then his statement was recorded. The accused were arrested on 6-10-1974. Kaur Singh was discharged from the hospital on 16-10-1974. Dr. B.L. Jindal opined vide his report Exhibit P. 1/1 that the injuries sustained by Kaur Singh could have proved dangerous to life. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed

Ujagar Singh (P.W. 1) and Kaur Singh (P.W. 2) furnished the ocular account of the event. Tarsem Lal Patwari prepared the site plan. Assistant Sub-Inspector Bakhshish Singh deposed to the investigation part of the prosecution case. When the accused were examined, they denied prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in this case. Labh Singh accused produced Joginder Singh (D.W. 1) Gurmail Singh (D.W. 2) Banta Singh (D.W. 3) and Tota Singh (D.W. 4). He also tendered into evidence documents Exhibits D.A, D.B, D.C. in support of his defence.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala on the material placed before him acquitted Kiru Singh but convicted and sentenced Labh Singh, Gurdev Singh and Major Singh for the offence as indicated above and hence the appeal at their instance.

The main plank of the argument on behalf of the appellants is that the crime was committed unseen and in any case conviction could not be sustained on the sole testimony of Kaur Singh injured. Lacking any factual basis for this suggestion, the usual argument was sought to be raised that the first information report was inordinately delayed.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and perusing the record with their help, I am of the opinion that their is no merit in this appeal.

The learned counsel did not refer to any evidence in support of his argument that it was dark at the time of the occurrence so that Kaur Singh could not see as to how many accused caused injuries to him. On the other band, it appears from the evidence on record that there was moon light at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, there could be no such difficulty as is being made out. The appellants were no strangers, they were co villagers and could easily be identified in all respects.

The next argument is no less insubstantial. In that connection it is well to remember that the dictum falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, is not a sound rule, in any case not one of the general or mechanical application for obvious reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries and embellishments. It is given to the Court to disengage the truth from the falsehood and accept what it finds true and reject the rest. Rejection of witnesses in toto is not to be favoured except where truth and falsehood are inextricably bound up polluting beyond refinement the entire fabric of the narration given by them.

Apart from the bare argument, the learned counsel made no effort to satisfy roe that the present case was of total rejection of Kaur Singh injured on which the trial Court depended in recording the conviction of the appellants. However, a persual of the statement of Kaur Singh who was injured during the course of occurrence leaves no doubt that Major Singh and Gurdev Singh committed the crime of which they have been convicted. He reads consistment as to their participation and the part each one of them played. There is no reason to reject his testimony as far as it implicates the said appellants. The trial Court could have done no better in the process of sifting the prosecution evidence so as to hold these appellants guilty and to extend the benefit of doubt to Kiru Singh on account of embellishments and discrepancies in the statement of Kaur Singh. I am in agreement with it. Labh Singh was alleged to have pressed the neck of Kaur Singh. Dr. B.L. Jindal who medically examined the injured stated that ho did not notice any mark or bruise on his neck. Labh Singh is the nephew of Gurdev Singh appellant. His case is distinguishable from Gurdev Singh and Major Singh appellants In view of this, the complicity of Labh Singh in the alleged crime becomes doubtful. Without doubting the testimony of Kaur Singh, out of abundant caution I award benefit of doubt to Labh Singh and acquit him.

With regard to the delay in moving the police, Ujagar Singh (P.W. 1), the informant, has stated that on the following morning of the day of occurrence, he went to his field to find out the reason as to why Kaur Singh did not return to his house. The witness maintained that he found Kaur Singh lying injured on a cot in unconscious condition. He arranged a tractor-trolly and removed the injured to Civil Hospital, Barnala. On receipt of ruga from the doctor, Assistant Sub-Inspector Bakhshish Singh went to the hospital. Kaur Singh being unfit to make a statement, the Assistant Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of Ujagar Singh which formed the basis of the first information report Exhibit P. A/2. I see no ground to reject the explanation which to my mind is plausible. Besides, the delay is only a suspicious circumstance which puts the Court on its guard and cannot by itself be held to be a reason for rejecting the evidence, if found otherwise fully entitled to credit.

13 The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants at best be said to have committed an offence u/s 326 and not u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Dr. B.L. Jindal has no doubt opined vide his report Exhibit P I/1 that injuries on the person of Kaur Singh could have proved dangerous to life. But this opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of injuries was obtained by the police on 18-10-1974, that is after one month and thirteen days. The medical evidence show''s that KaurSidgh made improvement and was discharged as cured. I see no reason why the appellants be not given benefit of doubt so far as their conviction u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, is concerned. Clause (8) of section 320, Indian Penal Code, which defines grievous hurt provides any hurt which endangers life''. Clause (8) refers to injuries which are not only dangerous but which endanger life a much stronger expression. This term is designedly used to exclude cases of hurt which, however, dangerous to life do not put life in a given case in danger. The question is one of degree and must be ascertained in each case as to what extent the hurt hears proximate relation to the risk to life. Applying this test to the fast of the case in hand, it bears repetition that the doctor nowhere said that the injuries endangered life of Kaur Singh. Evan other wise the surrounding circumstances, as observed above, do not indicate that in consequence of the said injuries life of Kaur Singh was ever in danger. That being so, the conviction of Major Singh and Gurdev Singh u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, to my mind would not be proper. They arc doubless guilty of commuting of an offence u/s 325, Indian Penal Code. I accordingly alter their conviction to one u/s 3/6, Indian Penal Code and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to 2� years rigorous imprisonment each.

With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed.