Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab

K P S Sandhu, J

Nirmal Singh appellant stands convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default R.I. for six months under section 307 I.P.C by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Amritsar, vide his order dated 15.11.1983. The appellant further stands convicted and sentenced to R.I. for six months under section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned trial Judge. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Coaccused of the appellant Mangal Singh was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned trial Judge.

Sohan Singh injured P.W. 4 owns land in village Sathialo and had also taken two acres of land from Pritam Singh on latse. The land of the appellant and his father adjoins the land of Pritam Singh. All this land was canal irrigated. The turn of water of Sohan Singh P.W. stated after the turn of the appellant. The appellant and his father used to cut water during the turn Sohan Singh P.W of Sohan Singh P.W. had lodged a protest with the appellant and his father and also reported the matter to the village Panchayat. On 20th September, 1982 at about 3.30 a.m. Sohan Singh and Chanchal Singh P.Ws had gone to take the turn of their water. The appellant and his coaccused were present there. Sohan Singh P.W. asked the coaccused of the appellant as to why he was present at which Mangal Singh retorted that they were only waiting of him. Mangal Singh is alleged to have raised a Lalkara and caught hold of Sohan Singh P.W., while Nirmal Singh appellant gave a spear blow which landed in the abdomen of Sohan Singh P.W, Nasib Singh P.W. 6 also witnessed the occurrence. Injured Sohan Singh was removed to Civil Hospital Baba Bakala where he was medically examined by Dr. Raj Kumar P.W. 1 on 20.9.1982 at 6.30 A.M. He found the following injury on the person of Sohan Singh P.W. :

"Penetrating wound 2 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed present on the right side of the abdomen 2.5. cm away from mid line and 61/2, 5 cm above the umbilicus. The wound was transverse in direction, fresh blood was oozing out."

On receipt of Ruqa from the doctor Krishan Gopal A S I PW 8 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Sohan Singh PW which is Exhibit PD. on the basis of the same formal first information report Exhibit PD/1 was recorded at Police Station, Beas on 20th September, 1982. The A.S.I. took into possession blood stained shirt and Banyan of Sohan Singh injured. He also visited the spot and prepared the rough site plan.

The appellant was arrested on 20th September, 1982 by Krishan Gopal A.S.I. and he got recovered spear Exhibit P3 in consequence of his disclosure statement. After due investigation, the appellant and his coaccused were sent up for trial.

When examined under section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution version and came out with a counter version which is as under:

"I am Innocent. On the night intervening 19/20.9.82 when I was in my fields Sohan Singh armed with a Kirpan, Chanchal Singh and Ghallar armed with dangs and Jhima empty handed came and attacked me in my fields. Sohan Singh gave a kirpan blow on my right leg, Chanchal Singh and Ghallar gave dangs blows. It was 1.00 a.m. midnight. I did not cause any injury to Sohan Singh."

In defence, he examined Dr. A.C. Sood, DW 1 who medically examined the appellant on 20th September, 1982 at 4.00 A.M. He found four injuries on his person out of which injury No. 1 was grievous caused with a sharp edged weapon within duration of two to three hours.

Apart from Dr. Raj Kumar PW 1. the prosecution examined S.I Iqbal Singh PW 2 who recorded the first information report Exhibit PD/1 and submitted report under section 173 Cr.P.C. PW 3 Rishi Ram Draftsman prepared the site plan Exhibit PE PW 4 Sohan Singh injured and PW5 Chanchal Singh are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PW 6 Nasib Singh another eyewitnesses of the occurrence was tendered for crossexamination. PW7 Balbir Singh Patwari stated that the land of Mohinder Singh father of the appellant adjoins the land of Pritam Singh and both the lands are canal irrigated. PW 8 Krishan Gopal A.S.I. investigated the case.

Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant has at the out set highlighted the delay in lodging the first information report. According to the prosecution version, the occurrence took place at 3.30 a.m. but the report was lodged with the police as late as 5.50 a.m. i.e. after fourteen hours, although the police post is located at the same place where the hospital is situated. The only explanation given by the prosecution is that since Sohan Singh PW was unfit to make statement so the first information report could not be lodged. But to my mind this explanation is certainly not satisfactory because if Sohan Singh PW was unable to make statement, there was nothing to stop Chanchal Singh PW 5 or the other eyewitnesses of the occurrence to lodge the report.

The appellant has suffered as many as four injuries on his person, out of which one was grievous injury caused by sharp edged weapon. He was medically examined two hours earlier to Sohan Singh PW. According to the medical report, the injuries suffered by the appellant were of the same duration as those suffered by Sohan Singh PW. Dr. A.C. Sood, DW 1 has stated categorically that injury No. 1 on the person of the appellant could not be selfsuffered. The prosecution has thus failed to give any exlanation for the injuries suffered by the appellant. It is also admitted that Chanchal Singh and Sohan Singh PWs were being prosecuted together in a cross case. Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Chanchal Singh PW was an independent witness. The learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the appellant casts a doubt on the version of the prosecution. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Lakshmi Singh and other v. State of Bihar 1977 CAR 28 (SC) wherein it has been held as under:

"In a murder case the nonexplanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:

That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version

That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore the evidence is unreliable and

That in case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

"The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution case".

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the case against the appellant is not free from doubt. Consequently, I allow this appeal, give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charges. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to the appellant.