Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Pritam Singh has come up in appeal against his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 8th October, 1982. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Milkha Singh injured prosecution witness was posted as a Moharrir Head Constable at Police Post, Khasa. On 21st November, 1981, Milkha Singh aforesaid left the police post for Amritsar for completion of certain police record. However, he deputed Pritam Singh appellant in his place by making an entry in the roznamcha. It is further alleged that Milkha Singh came back at about 6 p.m. in a drunken condition and started giving filthy abuses to the appellant saying who he was to sit in the chair of the Moharrir Constable. There was grappling between the appellant and the injured prosecution witness. The appellant is stated to have gone to his barrack, brought chhura Exhibit 4 and stabbed Milkha Singh in the left flank. He was overpowered by Swinder Singh PW and other police officials and the dagger was snatched from him. The injured was removed to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar, where he was medically examined by Dr. Harwant Singh Gill PW 2 who found the following injury on his person :

Incised stab wound 3.5 x 1.5 cm (depth not probed) on the left side of the lower part of the chest in its posterior maxillary line, 19 cm below the left axilla and 18 cm below and lateral to the left nipple at 8 O'' clock position. The wound was obliquely placed and bleeding.

The appellant was also got medically examined from Dr. Harwant Singh Gill PW 2 on 22nd November, 1981, at 9.15 p.m., who found the following injuries on his person :

A reddish contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the middle of lower lip and there was an abrasion corresponding to contusion on the inner aspect of mucous membrane. The lower left central incisor and the lateral incisor tech were shaky. The lower right central incisor was also shaky. Coagulated blood was present in the gum of the lower lateral incisor. There was 13 teeth present in the lower jaw and 16 teeth present in the upper axilla.

A faint reddish contusion 4.5 cm x 2.5 cm on back of left shoulder.

Complaint of pain in both the testicles. There was sight swelling of the scrotum but there was not any visible mark of injury externally.

Dr. Vidur Joti PW 7 also opined about the unfitness of Milkha Singh to make a statement. Swinder Singh head Constable PW 3 then made statement before Assistant SubInspector Ram Kishan, Exhibit PF. On the basis of the same formal first information report was recorded. The Head Constable handed over jersey Exhibit P1, banian Exhibit P2 and bush shirt Exhibit P3 belonging to the injured and bearing the cut marks to the Assistant SubInspector. He also produced bloodstained dagger Exhibit P4 before the Assistant SubInspector.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant came out with the following version :

"As a matter of fact Swinder Singh, HC was not present at the time of the incident. I was writing the entries in the roznamcha when after 6 p.m. Milkha Singh PW arrived there armed with danda and in drunken condition. He started abusing me filthily and snatched the roznamcha. I requested him to get his arrival recorded in the roznancha but instead he assaulted with dang giving me blows on my face and back. He also grappled with near squeezed my testicles. Finding no way out to save my self I gave him injuries in selfdefence. Chhura Exhibit P4 has been planted upon me to boost up the story and was never snatched by the witnesses as alleged. Milkha Singh has given absolutely a wrong version. I had made my statement to ASI Ram Kishan giving my version and had also narrated the whole incident to HC Swinder Singh who for the reasons best known to him did not record that but on the following day HC Swinder Singh got me medically examined from S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar, and consequently, I was falsely involved in this case. Because no heed was paid to my complaint, I filed a complaint against Milkha Singh PW under Sections 332/352/506 IPC and also 323 IPC and he has been summoned in that complaint by the Ilaqa Magistrate which is pending in the Court of Shri J.K. Uppal, J.M.I.C., and the next date is 271082. I am absolutely innocent.

He examined DW 1 Shri Pawan Kumar Ahalmed who proved a countercomplaint filed by the appellant against the injured prosecution witness.

Apart from the medical evidence, the prosecution evidence mainly consists of the statement of PW 3 Head Constable Swinder Singh, an eyewitness; PW 5 Milkha Singh, the injured prosecution witness; and PW 6 Assistant SubInspector Ram Kishan.

Mr. Ajmer Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended at the outset that, according to the documentary evidence and the statement of Swinder Singh eyewitness, the whole occurrence, i.e. the grappling between the appellant and, the injured, his (appellant''s) going to the barrack, bringing the dagger from there, causing the injury to Milkha Singh and the snatching of the dagger from him by Swinder Singh took place in less than three minutes. Swinder Singh has stated on oath that Milkha Singh inured returned to the police post at 6.02 p.m. and that whole thing was over before 6.05 p.m. and he made entry No. 17 in the daily diary at 6.05 p.m. regarding the injury having been caused to Milkha Singh and his having been taken to the hospital. On the basis of this evidence the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the version at put forth by the prosecution that the appellant had gone to the barrack and brought the dagger from there does not seem probable and that, on the other hand, the version given by the appellant that after he had received abuses and injuries at the hands of Milkha Singh he caused the injury to him in selfdefence is more plausible. I find that the evidence of Swinder Singh, who has no axe to grind cannot be brushed aside on this score. He has positively stated that the appellant did immediately go to the barrack and brought the dagger from there and caused the injury to Milkha Singh injured with that.

The next and meaningful contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, even if the version of the prosecution be accepted as true, the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation given by the injured and that the injury caused by the appellant, in view of the doctor''s evidence and the fact that he did not repeat the injury, does not fall within the mischief of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but falls only within the definition of grievous hurt, since the doctor opined that the injury was dangerous to life which is covered by clause eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. What we find from the evidence is that Pritam Singh appellant was on duty rightly assigned to him by the injured himself and that the injured came drunk and started abusing filthily unprovoked and without any reason. The injuries found on the person of Pritam Singh appellant also suggest that they are not the result of grappling. I think that this contention raised by the learned counsel must prevail. It is the injured who invited the trouble and set the ball rolling. It was quite normal for the appellant to get provoked by the conduct and action of the injured. Therefore, I hold that the appellant caused the injury to Milkha Singh under grave and sudden provocation. Consequently I convert his conviction from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the fact that the offence does not involve any moral turpitude I think it would be only fair if the appellant is given the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Resultantly I release him on probation on his furnishing bond to the satisfaction of the trial Judge in the sum of Rs. 2000/ with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. In the event of his failure to furnish a bond, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 335 of the Indian Penal Code. With the aforesaid modification this appeal fails and is dismissed.