Sadha Singh and Another vs The State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J.—This is an appeal by two brothers Sadha Singh and Gian Singh against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. By the said judgment Jassa Singh, Ajit Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjit Singh, the co-accused of the appellants, were acquitted and Mit Singh co-accused was released on probation.

One Rur Singh, father of Dayal Singh, (P.W. 3), was a Lambardar of village Panwan, tehsil and district Gurdaspur. It appears that Sadha Singh appellant was temporarily appointed as Lambardar in his place some years ago On the death of his father Rur Singh, Dayal Singh (P.W. 3) wanted to claim back the Lambardari and for that purpose made an application before the Naib Tehsildar Gurdaspur, on 22th March, 1978. Sadha Singh appellant as also one Bawa Singh, the father of Garib Singh (P.W. 4 laid claim to the office as other contestants. So me twenty days prior to the Baisakhi, 1978, Dayal Singh (P.W. 3), told Sadha Singh appellant to restore the Lambardari to his since he had become major and was entitled to his father''s office. Sadha Singh appellant, on the other hand, resented this and even threw challengee. The appellant did not relish the putting in of the petition.

The occurrence took place at about 7 P.M. on 13-4-1978. The houses of Sadha Singh appellant and Dayal Singh P.W. adjoin each other. At the time afore-mentioned, Dayal Singh (P.W. 3) and Garib Singh (P.W. 4) were returning after a round of the fields and when they reached near the house of Dayal Singh, they found all the accused variously armed. Sadha Singh appellant had a sua Gian Singh appellant a dang Mit Singh cenvict a dang and the remaining co-accused Gurmeet Singh with a spear and Jassa Singh, Ajit Singh and Amarjit Singh with dangs. All were busy drinking in the house of Sadha Singh appellant and emerged there from to the lane and confronted Dayal Singh (P.W. 3). Sadha Singh appellant raised an exhortation that Lambardari be now given to Dayal Singh. Thus exhorted, Gian Singh appellant opened the attack by giving a dang blow on the mouth of Dayal Singh breaking his three teeth. Gurmeet Singh caused a spear injury in his right arm when Garib Singh (P.W. 4) intervened to rescue his companion and requested the accused not to give more injuries. Sadha Singh appellant again exhorted his companions to give him injuries also. Sadha Singh appellant then inflicted a sua blow on the lower left side of the abdomen of Garib Singh Bhajan Singh, who at that time was at the entrance of the door of his close by house also came forward in an endeavour to rescue Dayal Singh and Garib Singh. Then Amarjit Singh, acquitted co-accused, gave a dang blow in his right upper arm and Gain Singh caused a dang injury on the left, side of his back. Three more injuries were given to him by Amarjit Singh, Ajit Singh (since acquitted) and Mit Singh convict (released on probation). After the occurrence the three injured were taken to Civil Dispensary, Kalanaur, where they were medically examined by Dr. Raghbir Singh (P.W. 1) around 12.20 A.M. on 14.04.1978. However, just about the same time but shortly before at 11.45 P.M., Swaran Singh, father of Ajit Singh (the acquitted co accused) had also been examined on 13-4-1978 by the same doctor.

Medico-legal certificate of Swaran Singh was sent to the police. Thereupon, Head Constable Surrinder Kumar (P.W. 8) reached the Civil Dispensary and recorded statement of Swaran Singh on the basis of which a case was registered against Dayal Singh (P.W. 3) and four others. It would be advantageous to add here that the said trial ended in acquittal of the accused in that case In other words, it is to be assumed that Dayal Singh P.W. 3 (accused in that case) and his co accused were held not responsible for the injuries of Swaran Singh. Those injuries were four in number, one of whom was grievous carrying a fracture of the little finger of the left hand.

Medico legal cerificates of Dayal Singh, Garib Singh and Bhajan Singh P.Ws. were also received by Head Constable Surrinder Kumar while at the Civil Dispensasy. After obtaining the certificate of fitness of Dayal Singh from the doctor, he recorded his statement, Exhibit P.K. which became the basis of the first information report in the present case. Investigation was conducted by the said Head Constable as also by S.I. Jarmei Singh (P.W. 7). On 4.5.1978, after the arrest of Sadha Singh appellant, he was interrogated in the presence of Banta Singh Lambardar. The appellant made a statement Exhibit P.L., to the effect that he had kept concealed one sua fixed on a dang in the room of his house in village Pawan which he could get recovered. In pursuance thereof, he got recovered sua, Exhibit P. 2, in presence of the said witnesses which was taken into possession vide memo, Exhibit P.M.

The accused were sent up for trial. The prosecution examined three injured witnesses. The eye-witnesses to the crime being Mohan Singh and Swaran Singh were given up as having been won over by the accused. In corroboration thereof, medical evidence was put forth. After the close of the prosecution case, the accused inclusive of the appellants disputed the prosecution case and termed it a concocted one. The counter version put forth by them was as given out by Swaran Singh in the cross case. The trial Judge considering the entire matter held that the statements of the three injured P.Ws were quite consistent and their version was corroborated by medical evidence. He found that the occurrence took place in front of the houses of Sadha Singh appellant and Dayal Singh P.W., which are contiquosly situated and that it was the accused party who was the aggressor. He thus recorded conviction of Sadha Singh u/s 307 and 325/34, Indian Penal Code, and Gian Singh under sections 325 and 323, Indian Penal Code. Mit Singh was convicted under sections 323 and 325/34, Indian Penal Code. For the remaining accused, he held that Jassa Singh was not armed with anything and thus his participation was doubtful. He also held Ajit Singh accused had nothing to do Sadha Singh, and since he was a witness in the cross-case, and only a single injury was attributed to him, which could have been caused by Gian Singh or Mit Singh accused he too was given the benefit of doubt. Gurmeet Singh and An arjit Singh co-accused were given the benefit of doubt by adopting the stance taken by the police that they were found innocent during the investigation. Sadha Singh appellant was sentenced as under:-

(i) u/s 307 I.P.C., R.I. for four years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.

(ii) u/s 325/34 IPC, R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further under go R.I. for two months.

Gian Singh appellant was sentenced as under:-

(i) u/s 325 I. P.C. R.I. for 1 1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

(ii) u/s 323 I.P.C. R.I. for three months.

Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it would be worth while to take note of the injuries found on the injured P.Ws.

Dayal Singh:

The first tooth on the upper jaw on right side of law was missing from its socket. No stump left in the socket. Fresh bleeding oozing through the socket. Gum, swollen and congested. The tooth in upper jaw adjacent to the missing tooth was fractured and portion of stump still present. Gum showed swelling. There was swelling of upper lip measuring 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. in the middle of the upper lip There was also a lacerated wound measuring 1 3/4 cm. 3/4 cm. on the centre of the upper lip. The Central incisor tooth in the lower jaw was also shaky. The number of teeth in upper jaw was 13 and in the lower jaw was 16.

A punctured wound 1 3/4 cm. x 1/4 cm. on the front of the right forearm, 2cm. below the cubital fossa on its lateral side. Wound, skin deep. The edges of wound were sharp and regular.

Injury No. 1 was grievous caused with blunt weapon. The other injury which was simple was inflicted with sharp point weapon.

Garib Singh:

A stabbed wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the left side of abdomen (sic)/2 cm. left to mid line of abdomen and 8 cm. from the level of umbilicus. The edges of the wound were lacerated. Depth not probed. Corresponding cut on the chest present. (Pulse 75 per minute regular. Patient conscious. B. P. 115/75).

The injury was caused with a sharp pointed weapon with blunt edges.

Bhajan Singh:

A reddish contusion 4 cm. x 2.5 cm. with abrasion in the centre at th right iliac region. Tenderness present.

A contused swelling 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the lateral aspect of right upper arm in its upper third. Tenderness present.

A reddish contusion 10 cm. x 4 cm. on the left lumber region.

A reddish contusion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on the back of left chest in the middle.

A lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. on the dorsum of the left thumb in its terminal phalanx.

There was congestion of sclera in the left eye, complained of watering and pain in the eye. No external mark of injury. Pupil reacting into light, normally and of normal size. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon and were simple in nature.

The extent on the injury on Garib Singh can well be appreciated by the operation note prepared by Dr. D.P. Kapoor (P.W. 2), Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur who operated on the victim at 4.15 P.M. on 13.4.1978 where the injured had to be removed. They reveal:

After resusitative measure, he was operated upon under general anaesthesia, through left paramedian incision abdomen was opened. There was greenish fluid present in whole of the peritoneal cavity more so in rectovesical pouch, morison pouch and right and left paracolic gutters. Whole of the fluid sucked out and lovage of peritoneal cavity done with normal saline. The whole gut was examined. There was a perforation of half cm. diameter on the antimesentric border of ileum about one foot away from the ileocaecal junction. Another perforation was present two feet proximal to the first. Third perforation was present two feet away from the second. All perforations were closed with purse string suture of silk and reinforcement done with lembert sutures. A tear in the mesentry about 1 1/2 feet from ileocaecal region was also closed. All other vicera was found to be normal. Drains were put in right and left upper and lower flanks and rectovesical pouch after peritoneal lavage. Abdomen was closed in layers. In post-opearative period, patient was given one unit of blood and he remained on intravenous fluid up to 21.4.1978.

Both Dr. Raghbir Singh and Dr. D.P. Kapur opined that the injury of Garib Singh was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature.

The learned counsel for the appellants made a two pronged attack to the order of conviction and sentence. He contended that the prosecution case having been found doubtful against the acquitted co-accused it should on the same logic be held doubtful against the present appellants as well. In the alternative, it was contended that the defence version was more worthy of credence and the appellants had a right of private defence to cause injuries since Swaran Singh, the father of co-caused Ajit Singh, had been attacked by the complainant party. On going through the evidence led by the prosecution and in particular the statements of the injured witnesses, their Terrains no manner of doubt that the appellants were the assailants of the victims. The breaking of the teeth of Dayal Singh has specifically been attributed to Gian Singh appellant. The solitary injury on Garib Singh (P.W. 4) has specifically been attributed to Sadha Singh appellant. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in cmnibus" has not been adopted uniformally in our courts. The mere fact that four persons, who had comparatively been assigned lesser parts, have been acquitted is no reason to doubt prosecution case. The Court while separating the chaff from the grain is prone at times to throw some pieces of grain as part of chaff. There is no warrant for the proposition that the grain so separated should also be thrown on the stack of chaff. Specific serious injuries have been assigned to the two appellants. There is no reason to doubt the injured eye-witnesses on that count. The counter version of the appellants having failed and there being no appeal against acquittal in the cross case, it is to be taken that Dayal Singh (P.W. 3) or his co-accused in that case were not responsible for the injuries of Swaran Singh. In any case, no capital can be made out by the present appellants since Ajit Singh co-accused, the father of Swaran Singh, stands acquitted. Thus there is no merit in either of the two contentions of the learned counsel.

It was then contended that the sentence of the appellants was highly severe and they should be given some reduction. The seriousness of the injuries on the victims impels the Court to reject the prayer outright. But for timely aid Garib Singh, P.W. who suffered tremendously, would have met his death and Dayal Singh P.W., was proper by a few of his teeth. No ground has been made out to reduce the sentence.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.