Sampuran Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

By this judgment I dispose of Crl. Appeal 366SB of 1996 (Sampuran Singh etc. v. The State of Haryana) and Crl. Revision 690 of 1996 (Bhim Sain v. Sampuran Singh and others), as the appeal and the revision have arisen from the judgment dated 14.5.1996 and order dated 16.5.1996, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted the appellants Sampuran Singh and Subhash under Sections 397, 326, 325, 324 and 323 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years under Section 307 IPC. The appellants were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/; in default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for four months. Appellants were also directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for four months. Further, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 325 IPC; in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for two months. Further, the trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 324 IPC. They were further directed to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Through the revision, Bhim Sain as prayed for the enhancement of the sentences.

The parties are residents of village Pinangwan. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a Birdadari Panchayat took some decision on the dispute over the drain on 19.4.1992. The decision was not acceptable to Sampuran Singh, who challenged the authority of Bhim Sain, Member Panchayat, who is the son of Khub Chand. After the Panchayat was over, Sampuran Singh along with his son Subhash, appellants, arrived with swords and attacked Khub Chand. They also caused injuries with swords to Vipat and Panna Lal, who were the brothers of Khub Chand. Phoolwati and Ramo, daughter and wife, respectively, of Sampuran Singh hurled stones on the complainantparty. On hearing the noise, Girdhari Lal, brother of Khub Chand, as well as Rama and Hari Lal, along with some other persons, arrived at the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran away. The injured were taken to the hospital. On receiving the information, the police went to the hospital. Khub Chand made the statement before the police on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered under Section 308/34 IPC. Investigation was conducted and accused were arrested. Swords were recovered from the possession of Sampuran Singh and Subhash, appellants. Bloodstained clothes of the injured were also taken into possession and those were sent to the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were sent to the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 24.8.1992 committed the appellants and their companions Ramo and Phoolwati to the Court of sessions.

Vide order dated 25.9.1992, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, chargesheeted the accused on the allegations that on 19.4.1992 at about 8 p.m. in the area of village Pinangwan, in furtherance of their common intention, they did an act to cause injuries to Bhim Sain with swords with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act had caused his death, they would have guilty of murder. Further the trial court framed charge against the appellants and their companions under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injury to Khub Chand by means of swords. The appellants were also chargesheeted under Section 324/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar, PW1, who sent Ruqa, Ex. PA, to the police station informing the police that Vipat, Panna and Khub Chand were brought to the hospital in an injured condition and their general condition was stated to be poor. For this reason, they were referred to the General Hospital, Gurgaon, for further treatment. PW2 Hari proved the photographs of the place of occurrence. PW3 is the formal witness, i.e., the draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan, Ex. PC. PW4 Mool Chand, ASI, proved the Ruqa, Ex. PD, which he received on 19.4.1992 and on the basis of which he formally recorded FIR, Ex. PD/1. PW5 Dr. Pardeep Bindal proved the injuries of Panna Lal, injured, and noticed four injuries on his person, which are described as follows :

"1. 2 cm x 2.5 cm x 1 cm incised wound just below the left angle of mandible. Margins regular. Fresh bleeding present. Injury was kept under observation.

6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2 cm (by blunt probing) on the left lateral side of the neck, 5 cm above the clavicle. Underline muscle cut, clotted blood and fresh bleeding was present. Advised Xray for the injury and injury was kept under observation.

1.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound over the terminal phylanyx of the left ring finger. Fresh bleeding present. Xray was advised.

1 cm x 5 cm lacerated wound over the dorsum of the middle finger of right hand. Xray was advised."

As per the opinion of this doctor, injuries 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries 3 and 4 were caused by a blunt weapon and the probable duration was within six hours. He issued carbon copy of the M.L.R., Ex. PG. He sent the Ruqa, Ex. PH, regarding the injured to the Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, along with the copy of the M.L.R. Dr. M.K. Mittal, PW6, is the radiologist who Xrayed the skull of Bhim Sain and on examination he found depressed fracture and fracture with loss of bone fragment of left parietal bone. This doctor issued Xray Report Ex. PJ and skiagrams, Ex. PJ/1 and 2. This doctor also Xrayed Khub Chand and found fracture on onethird of right ulna and issued Rray report, Ex. PK with skiagrams, Ex. PK/1 and 2. PW7 is Bhim Sain, the injured witness, who has corroborated the allegations of the prosecution and his statement is corroborated by Vipat Ram and Khub Chand, PWs 8 and 9, respectively. B.R. Batra, Medical Record Technician, Safderjang Hospital, New Delhi, PW10, proved the M.L.Rs of Bhim Sain and Khub Chand by identifying the signatures of Dr. Jama Ibrahim and Dr. Deepak Kumar. ASI Chhote Lal, I.P., appeared as PW11. The prosecution also tendered into evidence the report, Ex. PD, of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, and closed the case.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances and their plea was that they were innocent.

In defence, the accused examined Jagdev, DW1 and Rasul Khan, DW2, and closed the case.

The learned trial Court on the conclusion of the trial convicted Sampuran Singh and Subhash under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 IPC, as stated above. Ramo and Phoolwati were, however, acquitted.

Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal by Sampuran Singh and Subhash, and the criminal revision by Bhim Sain, injured, who has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence, which I am disposing of which the assistance rendered by Mr. T.S. Sangha, counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shailender Singh, DAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State, and Shri R.S. Rai, Advocate, for the complainant. I have also gone through the records of this case.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has raised a legal argument by stating that the trial Court was not justified in recording conviction under Section 307 IPC, as the doctor who opined about the injuries of Bhim Sain has not been examined. The counsel submitted that the injuries of Bhim Sain were sought to be proved by the prosecution in the trial Court through the statement of PW10 B.R. Batra, who was only a Medical Record Technician. In the absence of the statement of Dr. Jama Ibrahim and Dr. Deepak Kumar, it cannot be said that the injuries on the person of Bhim Sain were dangerous to life. Counsel submitted that at the most B.R. Batra, PW10, could prove the M.L.R. as a matter of fact that this injured had suffered the injuries on his person but with regard to the extent of damage and nature of injuries, this opinion could only be given by Dr. Jama Ibrahim and Dr. Deepak Kumar. Moreover, it has not been stated by B.R. Batra that the presence of Dr. Jama Ibrahim and Dr. Deepak Kumar was difficult to secure by the prosecution. No serious effort has been made by the prosecution for the service of these two doctors and in the absence of any expert opinion about the nature of injuries, conviction cannot be maintained under Section 307 IPC.

I fully subscribe to the argument raised by the counsel for the appellants. No doubt, Bhim Sain suffered a depressed fracture but whether this fracture was dangerous to his life or not could only be opined by the concerned doctor who medically examined the injured or by the doctor who might have performed some operation or who might have given some sort of treatment to the injured. In the absence of the statement of Dr. Deepak Kumar, there is a missing link. In these circumstances, the offence with regard to the injury of Bhim Sain stands reduced from section 307 to section 325 IPC, keeping in view the fact that this injured suffered a depressed fracture on his skull.

With regard to the injuries of Khub Chand, who suffered grievous injuries, there is no dispute that Dr. Ibrahim issued the M.L.R. of this injured and B.R. Batra, PW10, has been able to identify the signatures of Dr. Jama Ibrahim. The injuries of Panna Lal have also been proved by Dr. Pardeep Bindal, PW5. Dr. M.K. Mittal, PW6, has also certified that the injuries on the person of Khub Chand were grievous in nature. The perusal of the M.L.R. of Khub Chand would show that the injuries were suffered with sharp edged weapon like Kirpan.

On merits, the counsel for the appellants submitted that the motive in this case has not been proved because the dispute took over a drain which is at a distance of about 200 yards from the house of the accused. The argument is totally devoid of any merit. It has specifically come in the statement of the three injured witnesses Bhim Sain, PW7, Vipat, PW8 and Khub Chand, PW9, that there was a dispute between the parties over the drain and the matter went to the Panchayat. The parties were not satisfied. The accused brought swords and attacked the injured. Even otherwise, if it is taken for granted and motive in this case is weak, still the direct evidence led by the prosecution is so convincing in the shape of three stamped witnesses that it has become difficult for this court to say that the three injured witnesses are not telling the truth. Otherwise also, it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that motive is a hidden element which remains locked in the heart of an accused. The prosecution in this case has come with a specific motive that stands proved from the statement of Bhim Sain, PW7, whose statement has been fully corroborated by PW8 Vipat. From the cross examination of these witnesses, I have not been able to formulate an opinion that these witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence or that their injuries were selfsuffered. The nonexamination of any independent witness at the most puts the court on guard in order to scrutinise the evidence of these injured witnesses with care and caution.

The learned Counsel for the appellants, then, submitted that the sentenced awarded to the appellants under Section 326 IPC, is excessive. On the contrary, the request of the complainantparty is that the sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 307 IPC, is on the lower side.

For the reasons discussed above. I have already mitigated the offence under Section 307 IPC to section 325 IPC. The sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 326 IPC, is four years. Such offences are invariably triable by a Magistrate who can award maximum sentence of three years.

In view of my above discussion, I partly allow this appeal, set aside the charge against the appellants under Section 307 IPC and convict the appellants under Section 325 IPC. They shall undergo R.I. for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC and they also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for two months each. The conviction of both the appellants under Section 326 IPC, is hereby confirmed. They shall undergo R.I. for 3 years instead of four years each and they shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each; in default of payment of fine, each one of them shall further undergo R.I. for four months. Conviction and sentence against the appellants under Sections 324 and 323 IPC, is hereby maintained. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Since, I have reduced the offence from section 307 to 325, the criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

Let intimation about the disposal of this appeal and the revision be sent to the authorities concerned.