Mangal Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

Mangal Singh, Ajit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Kartar Singh and Karm Singh were tried under Sections 326/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran. Kartar Singh and Karm Singh were given the benefit of doubt and they were acquitted. Mangal Singh, Ajit Singh and Sukhdev Singh were convicted under Sections 326/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries on the person of Jagir Singh; to undergo R.I. for a period of 15 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries on the person of Gurdip Singh; and to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each on two counts under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries, on the person of Jagir Singh and Gurdip Singh injured. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by Mangal Singh, Ajit Singh and Sukhdev Singh was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on July 10, 1986. Hence, Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh have filed the present revision petition. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution are as follows :

On the night intervening 9/10101981 at about 2.00 a.m. Joga Singh, PW along with his sons Jagir Singh and Gurdip Singh went to his fields in village Deobala to irrigate the same. At that time Kartar Singh armed with a Dang, Mangal Singh armed with a Gandasi, Ajit Singh armed with a spear, Karm Singh armed with a Kirpan and Sukhdev Singh armed with a Dang, were already present there. It is alleged that all the accused told Jagir Singh, PW that they would not allow him to irrigate the fields through the Aad. Thereupon, Joga Singh, PW told the accused that his Toria crop would be damaged and requested the accused to allow them to irrigate their fields. The accused felt offended against the complainant party. Mangal Singh then gave a gandasi blow hitting Jagir Singh, PW on the head. On receipt of that injury, Jagir Singh. PW fell down on the ground. Thereupon, accused Ajit Singh caused a spear blow hitting Jagir Singh injured on his neck. Accused Karm Singh then gave a Kirpan blow hitting Jagir Singh on his right shoulder. Accused Kartar Singh and Sukhdev Singh then caused various dang blows hitting Jagir Singh injured on various parts of the body. When Gurdip Singh, PW came forward to save Jagir Singh, accused Karm Singh then gave a Kirpan blow hitting him on his right arm. Accused Kartar Singh gave a Dang blow hitting Gurdip Singh on his nose, left arm, right wrist, right leg etc. Sukhdev Singh then caused Dang blows hitting Gurdip Singh injured on his back, left buttock, right buttock etc. After causing injuries to Jagir Singh and Gurdip Singh injured, all the five accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. The injured were then rushed co Jhabal hospital where they were medically examined by Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, PW4, medico legally examined Jagir Singh, on 10101981 at about 7.30 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person :

1A punctured wound 1�cm�cm into depth not probed marginal were clear cut just below angle of mandible on left side of neck. Kept under observation. Patient sputum was blood stained.

Acute painful Swelling 3 cm. x 2 cm on left forearm on posterior aspect. Crepitus was illicited. Underlying bone was fractured.

Acute painful swelling 4 cm x 3 cm right shoulder joint. Movements were restricted. Advised Xray examination.

Acute painful swelling 5 cm x 3 cm right thigh outer aspect in the middle.

Acute painful swelling 4 cm x 4 cm right leg middle outer aspect.

Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep in the middle of scalp wound was transverse in direction and was bleeding, advised Xray.

Acute painful swelling left leg middle part outer aspect 3 cm x 3 cm.

Contused wound I cm diameter under the lower lip. There was dislocation of left lower incisor teeth wound was bleeding.

The doctor opined that injury No. I was caused with a sharp pointed weapon while injury No. 6 was caused with sharp edged weapon and the remaining injuries were caused with blunt weapon. Injuries No. 2 and 8 were declared to be grievous in nature, Injuries No. 1 and 6 were kept under observation while the remaining injuries were found to be simple ones.

Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, PW4, also medicolegally examined Gurdip Singh injured on 10101981 at 7.40 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person :

Reddish contusion 6 cm x 1 cm on right buttock.

Reddish contusion 5 cm x 1 cm on left buttock.

Reddish contusion 4 cm x 11 cm. on left buttock vertical in direction.

Reddish contusion 7 cm x 2 cm middle of back right lumber region.

Reddish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on right back upper part.

Punctured wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm extending 2 cms.

Acute painful swelling 4 cm x 3 cm left log middle part posterior aspect.

Acute painful swelling left forearm middle part 4 cm x 4 cm posterior aspect. Advised Xray examination.

Punctured wound 14 cm x 1/2 cm bone deep right elbow posterior aspect. Advised Xray. Wound has bleeding,

Acute painful swelling 2 cm x 2 cm with contused wound I cm. 1/4 cm on bridge of nose. Advised Xray examination for fracture.

Reddish contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on left deltoid region.

Reddish contusion 3 cm x 1 cm right forearm.

The doctor opined that injuries No 6 and 9 were caused with sharp pointed weapons while the remaining injuries were caused with blunt weapons. Injuries No 8, 9 and 10 were kept under observation while the remaining injuries were found to be simple ones.

On the basis of statement Ex. PA made by Joga Singh, PW, formal First Information Report Ex. PA/2 was registered. Head Constable Baldev Singh, PW6, took up the investigation of the case. He visited the hospital and recorded the statements of the injured witnesses. Gurdip Singh injured produced his Chadar which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PC attested by the prosecution witnesses Similarly, Jagir Singh injured also produced his shirt which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PH. Head Constable Baldev Singh, PW6, visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PG. Mangal Singh, Ajit Singh and Sukhdev Singh were arrested. During investigation Kartar Singh and Karm Singh accused were found to be innocent but trial Court summoned them to face trial with other accused.

In support of its case the prosecution has examined Joga Singh, PW1, Jagir Singh, PW2, Gurdip Singh, PW3, Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, PW4, S.I. Surinder Kumar, PW5 and Head Constable Baldev Singh, PW6. Later on the basis on an application moved in the case Dr. N.S. Piplani, CW1, who Xrayed the injured Jagir Singh and Gurdip Singh, was also examined as a Court witness. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence in the case.

Statement of the accused were thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. It was pleaded by Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh that on the relevant night they were present in their fields when Gurdip Singh armed with a sua and Jogs Singh empty handed came there and asked the accused to allow them to irrigate their fields from the tubewell of the accused; that the accused told the complainant party that they could not spare their tubewell water for that night and refused to oblige the complainant party; that thereupon, Gurdip Singh and Jagir Singh caused various blows to accused Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh with their respective weapons and then went away from the spot and that later on, they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused denied having caused injuries to Gurdip Singh and Jagir Singh. It was also pleaded that the complainant party is also facing prosecution in a cross case for causing injuries to accused Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh. Accused Sukhdev Singh, Kartar Singh and Karam Singh pleaded that they were not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence. They denied having causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in this case. They did not, however, produce any evidence in defence.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is no explanation for the delay of 10 days a lodging the First Information Report which casts doubt regarding the correctness of the prosecution case. He further submitted that the possibility of the false implication cannot to ruled out and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted. It was further argued that the complainant party had the motive to cause injuries to Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh because they had refused to give water from their tubewell to the complainant party for irrigating their fields. The fact that Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh had also injuries on their persons, some of which were grievous was pressed into service for advancing an argument to the effect that the complainant party was withholding the truth regarding the manner in which the fight originated. Under these circumstances, it was asserted that in a case where both sides appear to have received injuries, the accused petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in view of the fact that the complainant party was withholding the evidence regarding the part played by them in causing injuries to Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh accused. Mr. N.S. Boparai. learned Assistant Advocate General, has submitted that in view of the fact that Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh were not denying their participation in the occurrence, the fact that a delay of 10 days was there between the occurrence and the time when the First Information Report was lodged, would be of little consequence. It was also asserted that although Ajit Singh and Mangal Singh accused petitioners are stated to have some injuries on their persons. as is evident from the statement of Dr. Sham Lal Gupta, PW 4, yet the injuries not being grievous in nature, their nonexplanation in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, would have no effect. on the veracity of otherwise plausible prosecution story. It was further submitted that it is settled law that the failure of the prosecution to explain the simple injuries on the persons of the accused would not result in throwing out of the prosecution case. The possibility of these injuries having been self suffered by the accused in order to create evidence in the defence of their case, cannot be ruled out.

In the present case, the participation of Mangal Singh and Ajit Singh, accused petitioners in the occurrence is practically admitted. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the accused petitioners that the delay of ten days in lodging the First Information Report would prove fatal to the prosecution case.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.