Prem Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Prem Singh and Kala Singh sons of Babu Singh accused-appellants (herein referred as ''the accused'') were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Gurmel Singh, his wife Amro @ Amar Kaur and his son Amrik Singh and ultimately vide judgment dated 17.07.2002, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, they were convicted and sentenced as under:

Name of Accused Under Sections Sentence Prem Singh 307 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period Kala Singh 307/34 IPC of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Prem Singh 326 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period Kala Singh 326/34 IPC of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each. Prem Singh 324 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period Kala Singh 324/34 IPC of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each. Prem Singh 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period Kala Singh 323 IPC of 6 months.

The brief resume of facts is that the complainant Gurmel Singh (herein referred as ''the complainant'') and his family so as the accused are residents of village Khadial and are adjoining owners. The accused persons had been claiming the wall between both the houses as joint of the parties whereas the complainant was claiming its own ownership.

On 02.12.2000 at about 8:00 a.m., both the accused came out of their house and started raising noise. At this, the complainant, his wife Amro and son Amrik Singh (herein referred as the ''complainant party'') also came out whereupon accused Prem Singh told that the wall on which the complainant has placed the bricks is joint, whereas the complainant objected saying that it was their exclusive ownership and the matter could be taken to the Panchayat. In the meantime, Prem Singh accused inflicted a gandasa blow on the head of Amrik Singh whereupon latter became unconscious. The accused Prem Singh inflicted another gandasa blow chopping off the left thumb of the complainant. Again Prem Singh inflicted another gandasa blow hitting on the left side of the head of the complainant. Kala Singh also inflicted a stick blow hitting the right hand of the complainant. When Amro wife of complainant interfered, Kala Singh accused inflicted three successive stick blows upon her. Prem Singh also inflicted gandasa blow hitting on the left hand of Amro @ Amar Kaur. On raising hue and cry "marta-marta" Kishan Singh, brother of the complainant, arrived at the spot and also witnessed the occurrence. At this, both the accused fled away with their respective weapons. All the three injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Sunam and were admitted there at 10:00 a.m. Consequently, they were medico legally examined. The injured were not in a fit condition to make the statement on 02.12.2001. However, complainant became conscious 03.12.2001. ASI Sunil Kumar after getting the fitness certificate of complainant, recorded his statement, sent the same to the police station on the basis of which FIR was recorded by ASI Surjit Singh. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Amrik Singh and Amro, collected the M.L.Rs of the injured, arrested the accused and got recovered the weapons of offence. On completion of investigation, the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court.

All the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Baldev Singh Sahota, Medical Officer, who examined Amrik Singh on 02.12.2000 and found the following injuries on his person:

An incised wound in the vertex of skull 11.5 cms x 5 cms x bone deep, slightly to the right side of midline of skull, 13 cms. Above the right pinna. Cut hair present in and around the wound. Fresh bleeding was present. Membrance visible. Advised x-ray.

He proved copy of the MLR Ex.PA and opined that the injury was the result of the sharp edged weapon.

On the same day, at about 11:45 a.m. he, on examination of Amro injured, observed the following injuries:

A reddish bruise 7 cms x 2 cms on the lower lateral part of left thigh, complaining of acute pain. Advised x-ray.

A diffused swelling 3 cms x 2 cms on the middle of the lateral part of left upper arm. Complaining of acute pain. X-ray was advised.

Complaint of pain in the left upper part of back of chest. No visible injury.

An incised wound 1.5 cms x 5 cms in the web of thumb index finger of left hand.

As per copy of the MLR Ex.PC and pictorial diagram Ex.PD, he opined that injuries Nos. 3 & 4 were simple in nature and injuries Nos. 1 & 2 were kept under x-ray observation. He also opined that injury No. 1 is the result of sharp and remaining are the result of blunt weapon.

On the same day, at 12:05 p.m., on examination of Gurmel Singh, found the following injuries on his person:

Thumb of left hand amputated at the level of middle of proximal phalanx. Fresh bleeding was present, in and around the wound. Advised x-ray.

An incised wound 5 cms x 0.5 cms in centre into bone deep on left upper part of oxiput, lower end 3 cms., above the hair line, cut hair and clotted blood was present in and under the wound. Advised x-ray.

An incised wound 1.5 cms x 2 cms on the anterior lateral part of middle phalanx of index finger of left hand. Clotted blood was present, in and around the wound. Advised x-ray.

Multiple bruises on the dorsem of right hand and lower part of right fore-arm.

He also opined that injuries No. 1 to 3 on the person of Gurmel Singh were caused with sharp edged weapon while injury No. 4 was caused with blunt weapon. On examining the x-ray report, he opined that no bony injury was detected on the skull. However, on examination of the x-ray of the left hand, he opined that there was a fracture of middle phalanx of left thumb.

He also proved the police requests Ex.PH, Ex.Pj & Ex.PK and his endorsements Ex.PH/1, Ex.PJ/1 and Ex.PK/1 whereby he declared injured Gurmel Singh to make statement. He also proved the police requests Ex.PM, Ex.PN & Ex.PO and endorsements Ex.PM/1, Ex.PN/1 & Ex.PO/1 and his opinion Ex.PR/1 whereby injury No. 1 on the person of injured Amrik Singh was declared as grievous in nature.

PW2 Dr. S.S. Chauhan, Medical Officer, testified that injured Amrik Singh remained admitted in Rajindera Hospital, Patiala from 02.12.2000 to 10.12.2000. PW3 Dr. Ratna Gurratta, Junior Resident, Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, testified that on 07.12.2000, he had x-rayed the injuries of Amrik Singh and on x-ray examination, fracture of the skull was seen. She proved the x-ray report Ex.PT and skigrams Ex.P10 to Ex.P12. PW4 Dr. Rajindera Parshad, Junior Resident, Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, proved the endorsement Ex.PU/1 dated 04.12.2000 vide which he had declared Amrik Singh fit to make the statement. PW5 Dr. Dharminder Singh, Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan Ex.PV. PW6 Gurmel Singh complainant (injured) has reiterated the entire version, as set up by the prosecution. PW7 Amrik Singh and PW9 Amro (both injured) also while testifying about their injuries and naming the accused who had caused those injuries, corroborated the testimony of Gurmel Singh. PW8 ASI Sunil Kumar, Investigating Officer, had proved the investigation step by step including the recovery of weapons from the accused. PW10 Head Constable Baljit Singh proved the recovery memos Ex.PW8/I and Ex.PW8/J.

On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused, when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence.

On appreciation of the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them accordingly.

The main thrust of the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants, is the delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place at village Khadial on 02.12.2000 at 8:00 p.m. whereas the FIR was recorded on 03.12.2000 at police Station Sunam. From the perusal of the copies of the medico legal reports, it transpires that the injured were admitted in the hospital at Sunam at 10:30 a.m. on the same day and in an effort to collect the first information, with regard to the occurrence, the Investigation Officer represented to the doctor vide applications Ex.PH, Ex.PJ & Ex.PK in order to know about the fitness of all the injured to make the statements and the doctor vide his endorsements Ex.PH/1, Ex.PJ/1 and Ex.PK/1 declared them unfit to make the statements on that day. Again the Investigating Officer went to the hospital on 03.12.2000 and Dr. Baldev Singh vide his endorsement Ex.PL/1 opined that Gurmel Singh was fit to make the statement. On the basis of statement of Gurmel Singh FIR Ex.PW8/B was recorded at Police Station Sunam. Thus, no amount of delay could be attributed to the prosecution in recording the FIR. The delay if any, amply stands amply explained. It is always earnest desire of the police to record the statement of the injured in order to avoid any tempering or falsehood, and the investigating agency is always anxious to have the first hand information from the person aggrieved. obviously with the belief that injured would not name any false culprit. In any case, the FIR is not the encyclopedia of the case, a slight delay in lodging the FIR pales into insignificance when the witness comes forward to expose the truth. Here in this case, Gurmel Singh (PW6), Amrik Singh (PW7) and Amro (PW9), all the three injured eye witnesses, have narrated the occurrence in all the minute details naming the accused and parts attributed to them. All the three witnesses have withstood the test of cross examination. No material discrepancies much less material improvements have been pointed out so as to challenge their credibility, reliability and trustworthiness. In such circumstances, when the witnesses are found trustworthy then the delay if any caused in lodging the FIR becomes insignificant.

The other argument, to the effect that Kishan Singh, who is stated to be an eye witness, has not been examined, therefore, his non-examination is vital to the case, lacks merit. In this connection, it may be observed that prosecution being the dominus litus has the right to open the case and examine as many witnesses as it likes of its choice. It is the quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity. The stamped witnesses would be the last persons to involve false persons by leaving the real culprits. Their evidence is quite consistent and corroborative to each other and fits in with the medical evidence. Thus, in these circumstances, non-examination of Kishan Singh is not fatal to the prosecution case.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has further urged that the motive behind the commission of crime is not established. In this connection, it may be observed that all the three witnesses have consistently stated that there was a dispute over the wall. The accused were claiming the wall to be joint whereas the complainant party was resisting and setting their claim over the same. The accused persons appear to be aggressors who came out of their house with the weapons in the street and invited the quarrel. Thus, motive for commission of the crime stands fully established. In any case, motive needs to be proved but need not be proved with vigour and vehemence. Sometimes, motive lies hidden in the mind of the accused which is difficult to explore sometimes the crimes are committed for a small or a little motive or over trivial issues. It is a matter of common experience that normally in the villages disputes arise over the adjoining wall. If the accused had any grievance about the wall, then the matter could be got settled through Panchayat or Court and not by asserting the same by show of might. As such, the argument that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive is turned down.

I also do not find any merit in the argument that the Investigating Officer did not lift the blood or the part of the thumb from the spot. It has come in evidence that the place of occurrence was a thoroughfare and the blood could be disintegrated, trampled and the part of the thumb could have been destroyed with the frequent passing of the public at the place of occurrence. Prosecution version cannot be thrown away or discarded merely on the ground of non-picking of the part of the thumb or lifting blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. As regards the showing of the wall in the site plan, the complainant has set up the case that there was a dispute over the joint wall which has not been disputed by the accused, therefore, the mere fact that investigating Officer did not show the wall in dispute in the site plan Ex.PW8/C, hardly affects the substratum of the case.

Now coming to the last contention that the offence u/s 307 is not made out against the accused. It is clearly revealed from the evidence that both the accused came, armed with the deadly weapons like gandasa and stick. They started raising noise in the street to set up a claim over the wall. Though the complainant tried to diffuse the situation saying that the matter could be taken up with the Panchayat, yet the accused did not withhold their breath and while crossing all the limits attacked and injured the family members including the woman.

All the three witnesses have consistently stated that Prem Singh was armed with gandasa and accused Kala Singh was armed with stick. Prem Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Amrik Singh with an intention to kill him. Not only this, the injury was caused by him with gandasa, with such a force that brain matter from the head injury caused to Amrik Singh came out and thumb of Gurmel Singh was chopped off and fell on the ground. The report Ex.PR/1 made by Dr. Baldev Singh (PW1), is crystal clear to certify the fact that injury on the head of Amrik Singh was grievous and dangerous to life. The nature of the injury could well be assessed from the fact that firstly injured Amrik Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Sunam, but due to his deteriorated condition, he was referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala. PW2 Dr. S.S. Chauhan, has stated that Amrik Singh remained admitted in Rajindera Hospital from 02.12.2000 to 10.12.2000. PW4 Dr. Rajinder Parshad has stated that he became conscious after two days i.e. on 04.12.2000. PW3 Ratna Gurratta has stated that on x-ray-examination, fracture of the skull was detected. PW4 Dr. Rajinder Parshad, who operated upon the injured Amrik Singh in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, has deposed that wound on the vertex of skull was explored under local anesthesia and it was bone deep wound. Thus, it is evident from the medical evidence that Prem Singh caused injury on the head of Amrik Singh with gandasa from the sharp side which resulted into fracture of skull which is a vital part of the body. Amrik Singh was operated upon for the injury in the Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, thus, the trial Court was not incorrect while observing that injury on the head of Amrik Singh was imminently dangerous to life. However, the injuries attributed to Kala Singh which was caused to Amro, were found simple in nature. However, since he had shared the common intention with Prem Singh, therefore, he could be held guilty for the offences with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As regards the quantum of sentence, the occurrence having taken place on 02.12.2000, the accused having suffered vicissitudes of life due to proceedings for the last 10 years and also keeping in view the fact that only one injury on the person of Amrik Singh was found to be dangerous to life, some leniency on the quantum of sentence could be considered.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with the modification in the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants u/s 307 I.P.C, which is reduced to five years without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, sentence awarded to the appellants for the remaining offences shall remain intact.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance.