Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

A. S. Nehra, J.

The petitioners, namely, Balkar Singh, Mohinder Singh and SatpalSingh, were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, vide his judgment dated 7.2.1986, as under:

Balkar Singh appellant Under Section 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Sections 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Mohinder Singh appellant Under Sections 325/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.

Under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Sections 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Satpal Singh appellant Under Sections 326/14 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.

Under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imrpisonment for one year.

Under Sections 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment of each of the petitioners were ordered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, to run concurrently.

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated 14.7.1986, convicted Balkar Singh alone under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and all the petitioners, namely, Balkar Singh, Mohinder Singh and Satpal Singh were convicted under Sections 324/34 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment in the case of Balkar Singhpetitioner under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, was reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment, while the fine was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/ and, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; the sentence imposed on each of the petitioners under Sections 324/34, Indian Penal Code, was modified and each of the petitioners was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; the sentence imposed on each of the petitioners Under Sections 323/34, Indian Penal Code, was modified and each of the petitioners was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and with the aforesaid modification in the convictions and sentences, the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

Briefly stated, the prosecution story on the basis of statement Exhibit PG of Balwinder Singhcomplainant, is as under :

On 7.9.1982 at about 8.00 p.m., Balwinder Singh complainant along with his brother Sukhwinder Singh and father Tara Singh, was standing in front of the school near their house. Mohinder Singh accused armed with a gandasi, Satpal accused armed with a gandasi and Balkar Singh accused armed with a kirpan, came there. Mohinder Singh accused raised a lalkara that they would not allow them to run and he gave a gandasi blow which hit on the left side of forehead of Balwinder Singh, as a result of which he fell down and, when his brother Sukhwinder Singh and father Tara Singh came forward, Balkar Singh accused gave a kirpan blow to Sukhwinder Singh who, in order to ward off the blow, raised his right arm but received injury on his little and third fingers of the right hand. On receipt of the injuries, Sukhwinder Singh also fell down. Then Satpal Singh accused gave a gandasi blow to Tara Singh on the left side of his head. On receipt of this injury, Tara Singh also fell down. While the injured were lying fallen, Mohinder Singh, Satpal Singh and Balkar Singh, accused, gave them more injuries with their respective weapons. On the raula raised by the injured, Jagir Singh, brother of Balwinder Singh complainant, also came to the spot. He also raised alarm on which, the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. After arranging conveyance, Ajaib Singh son of Ram Singh brought the injured persons to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, where they were medically examined.

The motive for causing injuries was alleged to be that Satpal Singh accused etc. got arranged the marriage of Sukhwinder Singh, brother of Balwinder Singhcomplainant, at Tarn Taran but, later on, they refused to accept the marriage proposal for which, the accused had a grudge against them. The complainantparty did not report the matter earlier because the respectables of the village tried to get the matter compromised, but they could not succeed.

After recording statement Exhibit PG of Balwinder Singh complainant, S.I. Mohinder Singh made his endorsement Exhibit PG/1 on Exhibit PG and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR Exhibit PG/2 was recorded by Sub Inspector Kundan Singh. S.I. Mohinder Singh went to the spot and prepared rough site plan Exhibit PH of the place of occurrence. He arrested the accused on 15.9.1982. During investigation, Mohinder Singh and Balkar Singh, accused, got recovered gandasi and kirpan respectively after making disclosure statements. ASI Mohinder Singh recorded the statements of witnesses and, after completion of investigation formalities, challan against the accused was presented by S.I.Jagir Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Tarn Taran.

The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh, PW2 Dr. Y.V. Malhotra, PW3 Balwinder Singh, PW4 Sukhwinder Singh, PW5 Tara Singh and PW6 ASI Mohinder Singh.

The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the prosecution allegations as being baseless and incorrect.

PWI Dr. Surinder Singh medically examined PW Tara Singh on 7.9.1982 at 9.40 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :

An incised wound 8.2 cms x 1 cm bone deep present on the left side of forehead in oblique direction 4 cms above the left eyebrow and 1 cm from midline. Advised Xray. Fresh bleeding was present.

Superficial incised wound 10.5 cms x 0.2 cm skin deep, present on the left side back, starting from 2 cms below and medial to the lower angle of left scapula extending to the midline.

An abrasion 2 cms x.02 cm was present on the top of left shoulder. According to the doctor, injuries 1 and 2 were caused by sharp weapon and injury No. 3 by blunt weapon within a probable duration of about three hours. Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were declared simple.

PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh also medically examined Sukhwinder Singh PW on 7.9.1982 at 9.50 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person

(1) An incised wound 2.5 cms x 0.3 cm present on the dorsum of right little finger on the middle phalanx near the proximal interphalangeal joint. The underlying bone was cut through and through.

(2) An incised wound 2.2 cms x .1 cm bone deep was present on the dorsum of right ring finger near the proximal interphalangeal joint on the middle phalanxy.

(3) An incised wound 2.5 cms xO.75 cms muscle deep and was present on the outer aspect of the left. forearm in its middle.

(4) An incised wound 4.75 cms x 0.75 cm skin deep was present on the top of left shoulder.

According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by sharpedged weapon within the duration of three hours. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous and the rest were declared simple.

PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh also examined Balwinder Singh on 7.9.1982 at 10.00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :

(1) An incised wound 3 cms x I cm bone deep present on the left side of forehead, 1.5 cms above the left eyebrow and 4.5 cms from the midline. Advised Xray.

According to the doctor, the injury was caused by sharpedged weapon within the duration of about three hours. The injury was kept under observation.

The testimony of PW2 Dr. Y.V. Malhotra is of formal character as no fracture was found regarding the Xrayed injury of Tara Singh. PW3 Balwinder Singh complainant has narrated the prosecution version as detailed above. His testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of PW4 Sukhwinder Singh and PW5 Tara Singh. Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, PWs, are real brothers and PW5 Tara Singh is their father. PW3 Balwinder Singh, PW4 Sukhwinder Singh and PW5 Tara Singh are the injured and stamped witnesses. PW6 Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh deposed about the details of the investigation conducted by him.

PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh has deposed that immediately after the medicolegal examination, he sent the copies of the medicolegal reports through his peon to the police station, whereas S.I. Mohinder Singh (PW6) has stated that the copies of the medico legal reports were produced before him on 14.9.1982 by Ajaib Singh. PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh has specifically denied this fact and stated that he did not hand over the copies of the medicolegal reports either to the injured or to their relations. The testimony of PW1 Dr. Surinder Singh shows that the injury on the person of Tara Singh was grievous and caused by a sharpedged weapon. When the injuries were grievous and simple and caused by sharpedged weapon, the doctor was bound to send the medicolegal reports to the police station. The testimony of PW6. S.I. Mohinder Singh that on 14.9.1982 he received the copies of the medicolegal reports through Ajaib Singh cannot be believed. S.I. Mohinder Singh PW6 further deposed that Ajaib Singh told him about the occurrence as also the names of the injured and the accused and the part played by each of them. In spite of this, the Sub Inspector did not register the case against the accused for the reasons best known to him. The testimony of PW6 Sub Inspector, Mohinder Singh shows that the police did not register the case against the accused intentionally and gave them a long rope in the matter so that the petitioners could prevail upon the complainant party and pressurize them for entering into a compromise with them (petitioners). The investigation of this case is tainted. The police has tried to help the accusedpetitioners and this fact further finds corroboration from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation, when the statements of PW4 Sukhwinder Singh and PW5 Tara Singh were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer introduced the name of Rattan Singh, father of Balkar Singh accusedpetitioner. He recorded that, on a lalkara being raised by Rattan Singh, the accusedpetitioners caused injuries to the PWs. Had Rattan Singh been present at the spot or participated, then Balwinder Singh complainant must have named him in his statement Exhibit PG. Rather PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW4 Sukhwinder Singh have, in their statements in Court, categorically denied the presence of Rattan Singh. Therefore, it shows that, during the investigation, the police tried to spoil the case by introducing the name of Rattan Singh. According to the FIR (Exhibit PG/2), all the PWs were standing in front of the school near their house but, during investigation, the police tried to twist this fact and recorded in the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Sukhwinder Singh and Tara Singh, PWs, had come on hearing and identifying the shrieks of PW3 Balwinder Singh. Therefore, in the present case, the investigation was not conducted honestly by the police and they tried to help the accusedpetitioners from the very beginning. The defence version that the marriage proposal of Sukhwinder SinghPW was broken and the parents of the girl were demanding back the articles given at the time of betrothal but the witnesses were not returning them and that, on this score, the witnesses received the injuries at the hands of the relations of the girl, does not inspire confidence. No evidence has been adduced to prove the defence version. Only a suggestion has been given to PW3 Balwinder Singh that the parents of the girl were demanding jewellery, cash and clothes from them and that many a time they had disputes with the parents of the girl. This suggestion has been categorically denied by PW3 Balwinder Singh. PW5 Tara Singh has stated that they gave a gold ring and two suits to the girl, whereas the parents of the girl gave them Rs. 11/ and a basket of fruits. PW3 Balwinder Singh has stated that the talk about the return of the articles had taken place about one month prior to the present occurrence and that thereafter no such talk took place between them. Therefore, the testimony of PW3 Balwinder Singh and PW5 Tara Singh shows that the matter regarding the return of the articles took place about one month prior to the present occurrence and not on the day of the occurrence. Had the brother of the girl caused injuries to the witnesses, then the witnesses would not have spared them. Rather, the witnesses should have named them and there was no question of leaving the real culprits by them. Excepting the mere suggestion given to PW3 Balwinder Singh, the accusedpetitioners led no evidence to substantiate their defence version. Mere suggestion cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, the defence version has no credence and the same has to be rejected.

It is in the evidence of the PWs that the marriage proposal of Sukhwinder Singh PW was arranged by the accusedpetitioners but the same was broken by the complainantparty. The accusedpetitioners, who had acted as gobetween, might have felt offended against the complainantparty due to the breakage of the marriage proposal. In order to take revenge, the accusedpetitioners collected and caused the injuries to Tara Singh PW and his two sons, namely, Sukhwinder Singh and Balwinder Singh, PWs.

There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.