Natha Singh and ors vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This is an appeal filed by Natha Singh and others (nine in all) appellants against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (1). Jind, whereby they have been convicted under sections 302/149, 3241149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Natha Singh has also been convicted under section 404, Indian Penal Code They have been sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302/149, Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 100; in default further R.I. for one month to six months'' R.I. under section 324/149 I.P.C.; to 3 months'' R.I. under section 323/149, I.P.C.; to six months'' R.I. under section 48 I.P.C. Natha Singh has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 404 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 100/, in default further R.I. for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Their coaccused Mewa Singh has been acquitted.

Nafe Singh and Kalia are real brother and sons of Daya Singh. Prem Singh appellant is the son of Daya Singh''s brother. Jasbir and Jagdev appellants are also collaterals of Natha etc. and other appellants are their partymen.

On April 5, 1985, at about 3 P.M. Joginder Singh P.W. 6, Mohinder Singh P.W. 7 and the deceased Prem Singh were proceeding in the village and were going to bring Turi (fodder) from their field. At that time, Prem Singh deceased was armed with his licensed gun.

While they were going they were confronted by the appellants and the acquitted accused Mewa Singh near the Baithak of one Inder Singh. All the 10 accused (9 appellants and one acquitted accused) were armed with Gandasis, Lathis and Jeili. The deceased Joginder Singh P.W. and Mohinder Singh P.W. ran towards the field of Zile Singh. The appellants and the acquitted accused followed them and surrounded them raising a Lalkara that they would teach a lesson for getting a case registered against them.

Natha Singh appellant gave a Gandasi blow which bit on the right side of the head of Prem Singh deceased. Prem Singh appellant gave a Gandasi blow on the right buttock (flank) of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down. After the deceas had fallen down, all the appellants indicted blows on his person with their respective weapons i.e., Nafe Singh with a Gandasi, Kali Ram with a lathi, Mewa Singh with a Jeily. Jasbir Singh with a Gandasi. Jagdev Singh, Puran Singh. Sewa Singh also with Gandasis and Mohinder Singh with a Lathi. Joginder Singh P.W. tried to run away, but he was given a blow by Mewa Singh with a Jeily. Jagdev Singh alias Jhagar inflicted a Gandasi blow which bit on the thumb of the left hand of Joginder Singh Kali Ram gave a Lathi blow on his left eye and Jagdev singh a Gandasi blow on his left shoulder. Mohinder Singh was also not spared. Nafe Singh and Jasbir Singh gave him Gandasi blows.

P.Ws. had raised an alarm of Mar Dia Mar Dia" which attracted Sardara P W 8 and Hawa Singh (not examined) to the site and they rescued the complainant party. It is also in the prosecution evidence that the deceased apprehending trouble had fired in the air from his gun in self defence, but he was over powered, his gun broken and given injuries. On arrival of Sardara and Hawa Singh, the appellants left the place of occurrence with their respective weapons and Natha Singh appellant took away the broken part of the gun along with him.

It is also in the prosecution evidence that P.Ws. in their self defence caused some injuries to Nafe Singh, Kali Ram and Jagdev Singh appellants.

After the appellants left, Joginder Singh and Mahinder Singh came close to Prem Singh to see whether he was dead or alive and found him dead.

Joginder Singh P.W. leaving Mohinder Singh at the spot, went to the village and deputed Chaukidar of the village to the spot.

Joginder Singh then went to Police Post Data Singh Wala at a distance of 22 Kilometers and made a statement Exhibit P.W. to ASI Krishan Kumar P.W. 9. The statement Exhibit PW was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case at Police Station, Kalyat. A.S.I. Krishaa Kumar proceeded towards the spot along with Joginder Singh P.W. Harbans Lal S I P.W. 12 also reached the place of occurrence and he took over the investigation.

Krishan Kumar prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Prem Singh which he found lying in the field of Zile Singh. He took up blood stained earth from the place of occurrence along with some straw pieces/plants of the wheat which were stained with blood. The Butt of the gun was also taken into possession. He prepared the rough sitePlan Exhibit PU He recorded the injury statement of deceased Prem Singh, also preferred the injury statements of Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh and despatche the dead body of Prem Singh for post mortem examination He seat Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh also for their medical examination.

All the appellants and the acquitted accused were arrested. On interrogation they made their disclosure statements and got the weapons of offences recovered.

Dr. N.C. Muraja P.W. 5 conducted the autopsy on the dead body and found 15 injuries on the person of Prem Singh deceased. Injuries Nos. 1 to 6, 12, 13 and 15 were incised and the rest were blunt weapon injuries. He found that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

P.W. 2 Dr. Om Partap medicolegally examined Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh P.Ws. He found five injuries on the person of Joginder Singh, and out of them injury No. 1 was incised and the others were blunt weapon injuries. Similarly, on the person of Mohinder Singh, he found four injuries one incised and three blunt weapon injuries. Injury No. 3, a lacerated wound was on the right partietal region.

Dr. B.S Dangi P.W. 3 examined Nafe Singh appellant and found seven injuries on his person. He also examined Jagdev Singh and found three injuries on his person. Dr. K.L. Batra P.W. 4 examined Kali Ram and found one injury on his person.

P.W. 6 Joginder Singh, P.W. 7 Mohinder Singh and P.W. 8 Sardara were examined as eyewitnesses Krishan Kumar A.S.I. P W. 9, Prem Singh A.S.I. P W. 10, Siri Parkash S.I. P.W. 11 and Harbans Lal S.I. P.W. 12 are the investigating officers in the case.

The motive for the crime is stated to be that about 22 days before this occurrence, there was a dispute on the occasion of the marriage of daughter of Ram Dia and, therefore, there were criminal cases. They were cross cases in which Natha Singh etc. along with others were the accused in one case and in the cross case the complainant party was the accused. The complainant party was bailed out in the criminal case earlier and the accused were bailed out later and Sewa Singh and Mewa Singh accused were bailed out just a day before the date of occurrence. The remaining accused in this case belonged to the party of the accused side. There were criminal cases between the parties earlier also.

After the close of the prosecution, the appellants were examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Nafe Singh, Kali Ram and Jagdev Singh have pleaded counter version of the occurrence, Their case is that on the date of the occurrence, Kali Ram and Nafe Singh mere coming to the village from their fields. When they reached near the field of the complainant party they found Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh P.Ws. and Prem Singh deceased present there. At that time Prem Singh deceased was armed with a gun and Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh were armed with Gandasis, Prem Singh deceased had fired a shot at them which did not hit anyone. Jagdev Singh appellant was following them at a short distance. Nafe Singh, Jagdev Singh and Kali Ram ran towards Prem Singh who was in the process of reloading his gun. They hit at the gun and did not allow him to reload. It is further pleaded that Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Prem Singh attacked them and caused injuries to them. The gun was also broken because it was being used as a Lathi. They further pleaded that they caused injuries to Prem Singh in their self defence. According to them, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh did not receive any injury during this occurrence. They have concocted their injuries later on. Presence of Sardara P.W.and Hawa Singh is denied. According to these three appellants, the other appellants were not present.

All the other appellants have denied the prosecution case and have pleaded that they were not present at the time of the occurrence. Sewa Singh appellant has stated that he was present in the office of the Cooperative Society where he had been working and has pleaded that he has been implicated falsely due to enmity.

In defence, certain documents were produced to indicate that there had been litigation and cross criminal cases between the parties.

We have gone through the evidence and beard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the defence has argued that the injuries on the person of the appellants have not been explained. He has submitted that the explanation given by Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh qua the injuries on the appellants is not satisfactory and in the absence, of any explanation, the learned counsel asserts that the prosecution version cannot be accepted and the defence version appears to be plausible.

We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants but we do not find force in the same. The injuries suffered by Nafe Singh, Jagdev Singh and Kali Ram are simple, except injuries No. 6 and 7 on the person of Nafe Singh, which, according to Dr. B.S. Dangi, were declared grievous. Injuries No. 6 and 7 are as under :

An incised wound of 4 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on posterior aspect of left middle finger. It was having clotted blood in the wound. Advised xray.

An incised wound of 4 cm x. 25 x.25 cm. on posterior aspect of left index finger.

Injury No. 6 is on the left middle finger and injury No. 7 is on the left index finger.

The explanation of the injuries given by P.Ws. is that they caused injuries to the appellants in selfdefence. According to prosecution. Joginder Singh was carrying a Lathi and Mohinder Singh P.W. had picked up a Gandasa from the field of Puran which was lying there for the use of cutting of sugarcane. According to P.Ws., they made use of these weapons and caused injuries to the appellants to save the deceased and their own person.

The version of the appellants is that the complainant party bad attacked them while two P.Ws. were armed with Gandasis and their brother deceased Prem Singh was armed with a gun. Kali Ram, Nafe Singh and Jagdev Singh had attacked the deceased in selfdefence. The defence version that Prem Singh deceased had opened fire at them is negatived by the fact that no fire arm injury is suffered by any of the appellants. If the deceased had fired on the appellants with an intention to injure them from a close range, then some injuries on the person of the appellants are expected. The absence of any fire arm injury is suggestive of the fact that the deceased did not fire at the appellants, but fired in the air, as is the case of the prosecution.

The number of injuries on the person of the complainant party also suggests that the number of the appellants was much larger than the P.Ws. The deceased and the P.Ws. were given injuries after surrounding them. if the complainant party had been the aggressor and had attacked the appellants, then some serious injuries on the person of the appellants would have been there. In this case the injuries suffered by the appellants are very minor, but the injuries suffered by the deceased and the P.Ws. are extensive. In the circumstances of this case, the explanation furnished by the P.Ws. for the injuries on the person of the appellants cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The P.Ws. have said in Court that they had caused injuries to the appellants in the right of selfdefence to save their brother and themselves and the number of injuries supports this version. Therefore, the fact that the explanation was not given in the F.I.R. or that there is some shortcoming in the explanation will not be sufficient to make the prosecution case doubtful.

The prosecution case is supported by injured witnesses and Sardara P.W. the nature and the location of the injuries of the P.Ws. exclude the possibility of fabrication. Their presence in not even denied in the crossversion of the defence given by the appellants.

The testimony of Mohinder Singh, Joginder Singh is supported by Sardara in all material particulars. Nothing worth while has been brought on record to suggest that Sardara had some axe to grind against the appellant. The enmity suggested against him is too feeble. There is no justifiable ground to discard his testimony.

The occurrence took place at 3 P.M. on April 5, 1985, and the statement of Joginder Singh was recorded in Police Post Data Singh Wala at 6. 15 P.M. at a distance of 22Kms. Formal F.I.R. was registered at Kalyat at 7.20 P.M. Special report reached the Magistrate at Narwana at 1130 P.M, on April 5, 1985. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R or the receipt of special report. This lends support to the prosecution version.

The testimony of Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh corroborated by Sardara, when seen in the light of the fact that they are injured witnesses whose presence is even admitted in the counter version and there is no delay in the lodging of the F.I. R. is trustworthy and no dent is caused in the prosecution case even if the explanation qua the injuries on the appellants as given by P. Ws. is not very satisfactory.

The learned counsel for the defence has argued that a large number of appellant have been implicated and it is a case of inflation of number of appellants. We have considered this argument. The prosecution case is that after Prem Singh (deceased) had fallen on the ground, all the appellants and the acquitted accused continued to cause injuries with their respective weapons. He had 15 injuries on his person. Out of 15 injuries, nine were incised. The number of injuries on the person of the deceased and the fact that the two P.Ws. also received injuries suggest that the number of the appellants was also quite large. It cannot be said that there is any inflation in the number of the appellants. The P.Ws. implicated all the appellants with specific allegation that after the fall of Prem Singh (deceased). all the appellants caused injuries to him while be was lying. In this situation, it is apparent that the number of appellants was quite large and the version given by Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh implicating all the appellants is correct.

As a result of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.