Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Pritam Singh appellant son of Mulla Singh, aged 35 years, resident of village Gumtala, District Amritsar, Stands convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to `4 years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. He was further convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Pritam Singh convict, aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, of the trial Judge, has come up in appeal to this Court.

The facts of the prosecution case, as brought out in the evidence are that both Chanan Singh injured and Pritam Singh accused belong to village Gumtala Fivesix days prior to the occurrence, Pritam Singh accused asked Chanan Singh to keep some paddy saplings for him (Pritam Singh), which the latter plaughed. When Pritam Singh accused could not get paddy saplings from Chanan Singh, he felt offend and nursed grudge. On 25.7.1980 at about 7.30 p.m. when Chanan Singh injured and Balbir Singh PW3 were present at the teashop of Billa Mehtra in the Harijan Colony of village Gumtala, Pritam Singh accused armed with Gatra came there from the side of his tubewell and started abusing Chanan Singh. He gave two gatra (small kirpan) blows in the abdomen of Chanan Singh PW. On a noise raised by Chanan Singh injured and Balbir Singh PW, the accused made good his escape alongwith his small kirpan. The injured Chanan Singh was then taken to the hospital in Rehra, where was medically examined. The medicolegal report was handed over to Avtar Singh PW1 on the third day, who took the same to Police Station, Sadar Amritsar. He handed over the same to A.S.I. Raj Kishan who met him on the way. Case was registered on the statement of Avtar Singh PW1. According to him, the respectables of the village were trying to get a comprise effected between the parties.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant, examined Avtar Singh PW1 and Balbir Singh PW3 as eyewitnesses of the occurrence while Chanan Singh injured appeared as PW2.

Dr. Amar Singh, who medically examined Chanan Singh injured, found the following injuries on his person :

Incised stab wound 4 cmXcm, depth not probed, on left side of abdomen, at 50'' clock position 5 cm below umbilicus. Wound was obliquely placed and bleeding.

Incised stab wound 31/2cmX2cm, depth not probed, on left ilasic fossa, 10 cm from umbilicus. Wound was obliquely placed and bleeding.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accusedappellant made a denial simpliciter.

Mr. M.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant, has laid stress mainly on the point that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, as the occurrence took place on 25.7.1980 at 7.30 p.m. while the report was lodged on 27.7.1983 at 6.35 a.m. the Police Station, Saddar, Amritsar, being at distance of five miles only from the place of occurrence, i.e. village Gumtala. He was further argued that the explanation for his delay, given by PW1 Avtar Singh at the stage of trial : has not been accepted by the trial Judge. The learned counsel urges that the appellant is entitled to acquittal on the ground alone. However, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Avtar Singh PW has stated on oath that, since the village people were trying to bring about a compromise between the injured and the appellant, the report could not be lodged with the police earlier. The defence to produced no evidence to contradict this ascertain of PW Avtar Singh. The learned trial Judge has not accepted the aforesaid explanation on the ground that there is no evidence on this point. I do not find myself in agreement with the finding of the learned trial Judge. The statement of Avtar Singh PW itself in evidence stands unrebutted. There is no previous enmity or illwill between the injured and the appellant. The eyewitnesses including the injured one, have fully supported the prosecution case. Nothing has been brought out in the crossexamination, which could cost doubt on the veracity of these witnesses. However. I find from the medical evidence that the case does not fall within the mischief of Section 307 IPC, as the doctor has only opined that the injury to the peritoneum could endanger life. There is no evidence, that the injured would have died but for timely medical aid. Consequently, I convert the conviction of the appellant from under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 326 IPC and reduce his sentence of imprisonment for four years to three years, maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Judge. His conviction under Section 324 IPC is maintained and it is ordered that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Subject to the modification in the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, as aforementioned, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.