Ranjit Singh, Karnail Singh, Gurdip Singh alias Toni and Gurminder Singh alias Babu vs The State of Punjab

Virender Singh, J.—Ranjit Singh and Karnail Singh sons of Girdhara Singh, Gurdip Singh alias Toni and Gurminder Singh alias Babu sons of Ranjit Singh stand convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment dated June 6, 1989 as under:

Ranjit Singh

304 Part II/34 RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for 3 months.

325/34 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further RI for two months. Karnail Singh

304 Part II IPC RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default to suffer further then RI for three months.

325/34 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further RI for two months. Gurdip Singh

304 Part II/34 RI for seven years and to pay a fine IPC of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for 3 months.

325/34 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further RI for two months. Gurminder Singh

304 Part II/34 RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of IPC Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for three months.

325 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further RI for two months.

All the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

Parminder Singh son of Girdhara Singh was also booked alongwith the abovesaid four appellants, but he stands acquitted by the trial Court. However, no appeal/revision has been filed against his acquittal.

The case of the prosecution is that the house of the present four appellants adjoins the haveli of Nirmal Singh (PW-8). Some days before the occurrence, the appellants had allegedly tied to construct some wall in the haveli of Nirmal Singh PW. Nirmal Singh and his brother Dilbagh Singh (since deceased) objected to it and told that the wall should be constructed only after taking the measurements of the site through the Panchayat.

On 3-2-1988 the appellants alongwith Parminder Singh (since acquitted) allegedly started constructing the wall and in the evening at about 7-00 PM, Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh were informed by wife of Nirmal Singh about it. Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh went to their haveli to lodge a protest and saw that some portion of the wall had already been constructed. Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh protested to Ranjit Singh appellant as to why the wall was constructed. The accused then started an altercation with Nirmal Singh and his brother Dilbagh Singh. The accused rushed to their house, came out armed with dangs and went into the haveli. Ranjit Singh appellant raised a lalkara, asking his co-accused that Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh should not be spared. Thereafter Karnail Singh appellant, who was allegedly armed with a dang, gave a dang blow on the left side of the head of Dilbagh Singh, due to which Dilbagh Singh had fallen down. Ranjit Singh appellant, who was also armed with a dang, gave a dang blow on the left side of head of Nirmal Singh. Karnail Singh appellant also gave one dang blow on the right side of the head of Nirmal Singh. Gurdip Singh and Gurminder Singh are also alleged to have given dang blows to Nirmal Singh. Parminder singh (since acquitted) also allegedly gave a dang blow to nirmal Singh on his head. The raula (noise) raised by Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh attracted Jai Singh (PW-9) and Joga Singh, who witnessed the occurrence. The accused thereafter ran away from the spot. Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh were removed to the hospital in an injured condition. As the condition of Dilbagh Singh had become serious, he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to his injuries on 5-2-1988 at 3-40 AM.

After the committal proceedings, all the accused were charged u/s 148 IPC. Karnail Singh was substantively charged u/s 302 IPC, whereas the remaining accused were charged u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Gurminder Singh appellant was substantively charged u/s 325 IPC, whereas the other accused were charged u/s 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Ranjit Singh, Karnail Singh and Parminder Singh accused were further charged u/s 323 IPC, whereas Gurdip Singh and Gurminder Singh appellants were charged u/s 323 read with Section 149 IPC.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and the appellants produced 4 witnesses:

Dr. GV Prakash was examined as PW-1, who had initially examined Dilbagh Singh on 4.2.1988 and found a bone deep lacerated wound of 10 cms over the scalp in left parietal area.

PW-2 is Dr. KG Rao, who declared Dilbagh Singh as dead on 5.2.1988. The cause of death, according to this witness was cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury.

Dr. SN Mathuria (PW-3) had attended Dilbagh Singh in the hospital till he breathed his last. According to him, the head scan of Dilbagh Singh was conducted during his stay in the hospital and that the CT showed diffuse brain cedema with compression of right lateral ventricle. According to the opinion of this doctor, the head injury on the person of Dilbagh Singh was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Dr. Ashok Dhingra (PW-4) had radiologically examined Nirmal Singh on 9-2-1988 and found fractures of the lateral epicondyle of left humerus, the lower end of the right radius and lower end of the proximal phalynx of the left middle finger.

Dr. JR Chuhan (PW-5) had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Dilbagh Singh. According to him, there was fracture of left fronto parietal and temporal bone. The cause of death, according to this doctor, was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Dr. Dilbagh Rai Medical Officer, Civil Dispensary (PW-6) had prepared the medico legal report of Nirmal Singh on 3.2.1988 and had found seven injuries on his person.

He also examined Pritam Kaur @ Parvati wife of Girdhara Singh on 4.2.1988 and found two injuries on her person, one of which was above the left pinna on the left side of the scalp. X-ray was advised. As per the radiological examination, the fracture was found on the parietal bone of the skull.

Har Kishan Singh, Draftsman has been examined as PW 7, who has prepared the scaled plan (Exhibit PS) of the place of occurrence.

Nirmal Singh injured has been examined as PW-8.

Jai Singh (PW-9) is the alleged eye witness to the occurrence, who has corroborated the statement of Nirmal Singh injured.

PW-10 Head Constable Hira Singh is a witness of formal character, who sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Dilbagh Singh to make a statement.

ASI Baldev Singh (PW-11) had investigated the case from 3rd February, 1988 till the arrest of some of the accused.

PW-12 SI/SHO Avtar Singh had received a ruqqa on 5.2.1988 regarding the death of Dilbagh Singh, whereafter he changed the offence into Section 302 IPC. He had partly investigated the case and had arrested Paminder Singh, Gurdip Singh, Gurminder Singh alias Babu on 10-2-1988. Karnail Singh and Ranjit Singh appellants were formally arrested by him on 11.2.1988 and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, both of them had got the dangs recovered.

The prosecution also tendered in evidence affidavits of certain witnesses, who were of formal character besides the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The stand as emerged from the statement of Karnail Singh appellant recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was living in Canada for the last so many years and had come to India to meet his relations and that he has been falsely implicated in this case though he was not present at the time of alleged occurrence.

Ranjit Singh appellant has taken the stand that Dilbagh Singh (deceased) and Nirmal Singh PW had come to his house armed with dangs. They had trespassed into his court-yard. His mother Pritam Kaur objected to it. They assaulted her with the dangs. In other to save her, his wife Surjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur-wife of Karnail Singh hurled brick bats. In the said process, Dilbagh Singh and Nirmal Singh sustained injuries. The police did not listen to them and a complaint u/s 325/34 IPC was filed by his wife Surjit Kaur, in which Nirmal Singh has been summoned as an accused.

Gurdip Singh and Gurminder Singh also took the plea of false implication.

In defence, Mandhir Singh Secretary, Gram Panchayat Binjon was examined as DW-1, who produced some record showing that on 22-1-1984 Jai Singh and others had made a complaint to the Gram Panchayat against Ranjit Singh appellant regarding cutting of trees from Shamlat Land. He proved the said application.

Lachhman Dass was produced as DW-2, who produced the file relating to the enquiry against Ranjit Singh regarding cutting of trees.

Dr. Kashmir Singh (DW-3) stated that when Dilbagh Singh was admitted in the hospital, he was brought by his son/Kamaljit Singh and one Amolak Singh of village Binjon and the history was given that the patient had received the injury as he was hit with a brick on his head at about 7-00 PM on 3.2.1988.

Surjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh appellant was examined as DW-4. She brought the same picture as projected by Ranjit Singh appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the above said four appellants, as referred to above. Parminder Singh, as stated earlier, was however acquitted by extending benefit of doubt to him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have perused the entire evidence recorded by the trial Court and the other relevant documents.

Mr. Ghai has strenuously argued that the prosecution is suppressing the genesis of fight in this case. Developing his arguments, he submitted that Pritam Kaur mother of Ranjit Singh and Karnail Singh appellants had also received injuries in the occurrence, but there is no reference to her in the initial statement (Exhibit PM) recorded at the instance of Nirmal Singh injured. It is then contended by Mr. Ghai that the injuries on the person of Pritam Kaur cannot be self inflicted or self suffered as both the injuries are on the head, a vital part and according to the Radiologist, injury No. 1 has resulted into fracture of the bone. Non-explanation of the serious injury, according to Mr. Ghai, speaks volumes or the fact that the complainant side is intentionally suppressing the genesis of fight. Picking the thread here, it is contended by Mr. Ghai that this non-explanation is not only fatal to the prosecution but at the same time probabilises the defence of the accused side that Dilbagh Singh and Nirmal Singh had come to their house armed with dangs and when they had entered their court-yard, Pritam Kaur was assaulted by them with their dangs and thereafter Surjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur wives of Ranjit Singh and Karnail Singh appellants started hurling brick-bats and incidently one brick bat hit Dilbagh Singh. Mr. Ghai has taken me through the statement of Dr. Kashmir Singh (DW-3) who has categorically stated that when Dilbagh Singh was brought to PGI by his son/Kanwaljit Singh and one Amolak Singh, the history given to him was that he had received head injury by a brick-bat. Colouring his arguments from the above said facts. Mr. Ghai contends that whole of the prosecution case be seen with a pinch of salt and it should be rejected in its entirety.

Mr. Ghai has also drawn my attention towards the site-plan (Exhibit DB/1) and also to the rough site plan (Exhibit PY) and made an attempt to show that in fact there was no wall which was constructed in the haveli of Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh and as such, the case as set up by the prosecution that on 3.2.1988 the accused had constructed some portion of the wall, is just a concocted story in order to falsely implicate the accused by knitting a net wide.

The last submission made by Mr. Ghai was that in the totality of the circumstances of the present case, Section 304 Part II IPC would not be attracted qua any of the appellants. According to Mr. Ghai, Dilbagh Singh and Nirmal Singh had gone to lodge the protest, which resulted into an altercation and thereafter the appellants had brought dangs; that Ranjit Singh appellant raised a lalkara and thereafter Dilbagh Singh was given one injury by Karnail Singh; that no one else has caused any injury to Dilbagh Singh (deceased); that the allegations are that the other accused caused grievous and simple injuries by dangs to Nirmal Singh PW and as such the culpability of all the accused within the ambit of Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC is not made out. Mr. Ghai at the same time has also submitted that the case of Karnail Singh also calls for reduction in the sentence. He was in fact permanent resident of Canada and had come to India to see his relations and he is not a previous convict.

On the other hand, Mr. HP Singh Raja, learned State Counsel has vehemently argued that the case against the four appellants is proved to the hilt: that they were all armed with dangs and caused injuries to Dilbagh Singh (deceased) and Nirmal Singh; that even if one injury was caused to Dilbagh Singh (deceased) by Karnail Singh, all the appellants had the common intention, as is borne out from the evidence; that the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is liable to be maintained and that the appellants do not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence.

Mr. GS Giani, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant has also toed the arguments advanced by learned State counsel.

So far as the first contention of Mr. Ghai that the prosecution case fails in its entirety is concerned, the same has no substance. Mere non-explanation in respect of the injuries on the person of Pritam Kaur would not demolish the case of the prosecution in its totality. The case as set up by the prosecution in the light of the deposition of two witnesses viz. Nirmal Singh (PW-8) and Jai Singh (PW-9), coupled with the medical evidence on record is required to be seen minutely. No doubt, Nirmal Singh does not talk about the presence of Pritam Kaur at the place of occurrence or about the injury on her head in his initial statement (Exhibit PM). However, when stepped into the witness box, he has categorically stated that Pritam Kaur also came there and tried to intervene. The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced below:

"When I was lying on the ground, Ranjit Singh and Gurdip Singh gave more blows to me. The mother of the accused also came there and tried to intervene. Thereafter the accused ran away alongwith their respective weapons".

Though this witness has been confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit PM), wherein this fact was not recorded, yet this lapse by itself would not be a ground to throw the prosecution case as whole when the statements of Nirmal Singh (PW-8) and Jai Singh (PW-9) are consistent about the occurrence. Their testimony also stands corroborated by the medical evidence on record.

The prosecution case can also be scanned in the light of the stand taken in defence and as projected by Surjit Kaur (DW-4), Nirmal Singh (PW-8) has suffered as many as 7 injuries, resulting into three fractures. These injuries are possible by dang, which is also the case of Nirmal Singh. Although Dilbagh Singh had received one injury, yet the same resulted into fracture of temporal and parietal bone of the left side. I am not at all impressed by the defence version that Dilbagh Singh (deceased) and Nirmal Singh PW had reached the haveli with dangs and caused injuries to Pritam Kaur and thereafter wives of Ranjit Singh and Karnail Singh started throwing brick-bats on Dilbagh Singh and Nirmal Singh, as a result of which both of them received injuries. It is not at all possible to hold that the injuries on the person of Nirmal Singh were by brick-bats. Similarly, the injury on the person of Dilbagh Singh can also not be by a brick-bat. To be fair of the learned counsel for the appellants. I may mention here that although in the medical evidence it has come that the history given by Amolak Singh of village Binjon and Kanwaljit Singh son of Dilbagh to Dr. Kashmir Singh (DW-3) was that Dilbagh Singh had received injury by brick bat, yet when cross-examination, this doctor stated that he did not remember the name of the person who had given the said history. The aforesaid history was recorded by him on 4.2.1988 at 3-30 PM. The case was already reported by Nirmal Singh PW on 3.2.1988 at 11-40 AM which statement had formed basis for registration of the First Information Report. Kanwaljit Singh son of Dilbagh Singh (deceased) may have been present by the side of his father in the hospital, but was certainly not an eye witness to the occurrence. There is no reason for me to disbelieve the version given by Nirmal Singh (PW-8) and Jai Singh (PW-9).

I have minutely scanned the scaled plan (Exhibit DB/1) and the rough site-plan (Exhibit PY). These two documents would not strengthen the case of the appellants in any manner. In my view, the complainant side has not suppressed the genesis of fight. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants on this count is thus repelled.

So far as the next submission made by Mr. Ghai regarding common intention of all the appellants is concerned, the same has force. As per the case of the prosecution, some days prior to the occurrence, the accused had tried to construct a wall in the haveli of Nirmal Singh. Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh (deceased) had objected to it and had told that the wall should be constructed only after taking measurement of the site. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 3.2.1988 the accused had started constructing the wall and at 7-00 PM, when Nirmal Singh and Dilbagh Singh (deceased) were informed of this fact, they went towards the haveli and asked Ranjit Singh appellant as to why the wall was constructed. Thereafter the altercation had started. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused were already present there, armed with dangs.

Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that although all the accused had brought dangs, yet Dilbagh Singh was given injury by Karnail Singh only. The other accused had given belows to Nirmal Singh and had not touched Dilbagh Singh at all. This apparently appears to be the reason for the trial court to have come to the conclusion that it was not a case falling within the four corners of Section 302 IPC and instead Section 304 Part II IPC is attracted. The observation of the trial Court was that there was knowledge that the injury which was to be caused was likely to cause death and that the intention to kill was not apparent. In my view, this knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death can be attributed to Karnail Singh appellant only and not to his co-accused. Consequently, I uphold the conviction of Karnail Singh appellant u/s 304 Part II IPC, whereas the conviction of the other three appellants, namely Ranjit Singh, Gurminder Singh and Gurdip Singh on this count, is set-aside.

Since Gurminder Singh was also charged substantively u/s 325 IPC for causing grievous injury to Nirmal Singh, his conviction u/s 325 IPC is maintained. Similarly, the conviction of Karnail Singh, Ranjit Singh and Gurdip Singh is also maintained u/s 325/34 IPC.

So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the case relates to the year 1988. No untoward incident has ever happened after the present occurrence between both the sides. The appellants have already suffered the rigor of protracted trial for a period of about 16 years.

Karnail Singh appellant was not armed with any deadly weapon i.e. dang etc. He had come from Canada for sometime to meet his relations. He is stated to have remained in custody throughout the trial and also after the conviction till 22-6-1989. When his substantive sentence was suspended by this Court and as such has remained in custody for a total period of about one year and four months. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, his substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court u/s 304 Part II IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he would suffer further RI for one year. The amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within 3 months from today and the same would be disbursed to the legal heirs of Dilbagh Singh (deceased) without any further delay.

The sentence of Karnail Singh appellant as recorded u/s 325/34 IPC is also reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- would remain the same.

So far as Ranjit Singh, Gurdip Singh and Gurminder Singh appellants are concerned, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, their sentence of imprisonment imposed u/s 325/34 IPC is also reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- each is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- each, to be deposited within three months from today. In case of default of payment of fine, they would suffer further RI for three months. The amount of fine, if realised, would be paid to Nirmal Singh injured.

With the modifications in sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands partly allowed. Ranjit Singh, Gurdip Singh and Gurminder Singh appellants are acquitted of the charge u/s 304 Part II IPC. However, their conviction under the other count is maintained. The appeal in respect of Karnail Singh appellant is dismissed on both the counts.