AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.L. Anand, J.—By this judgment. I dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 106-SB-90 titled Sat Pal and others v. State of Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 875 of 1990 titled Pritam Singh v. Satpal and Ors. as in the opinion of this Court, both the matters can be disposed of by a common judgment.
Crl.Appeal No. 106-SB-90 has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence both dated 27.3.1990, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala who convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence u/s 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for six moths. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for committing the offence u/s 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. For the offence u/s 304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC each one of the appellants was directed to undergo R.I., for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- each. In default of payment of fine each one of them was called upon to undergo R.I. for one years. The learned trial Court also held that all the sentences awarded above shall run concurrently. The whole of the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- or part recovered shall be paid in equal shares to the widow, parents if any and children of the deceased.
In the criminal revision, it has been prayed by Shri Pritam Singh that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be enhanced and the amount of compensation may also be enhanced for the benefit of the heirs of the deceased.
S/Shri Satpal, his three real brothers Jasbir Singh, Mahipal, Mohinder Singh and Bani Singh son of Sadhu Singh, were charge-sheeted under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that firstly on 22.10.1987 in the area of village Nagal they constituted an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to cause the death of Puran Singh and also to cause injuries to Pritam Singh and they committed offence of rioting and at that time they were armed with deadly weapons like lathis and gandasi. Second charge against the appellants is that on the same day time and place in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly they committed the murder of Puran Singh by intentionally causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and thirdly on the same date time and place and in prosecution of the said common object of the said unlawful assembly they voluntarily caused simple hurt to Pritam Singh and thereby committed and offence punishable u/s 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case set up by the prosecution in the trial Court was that on 22.10.1987 at about 8.00 P.M. Pritam Singh and his father Puran Singh were present in their Gher (cattle shed house). In the meantime, Satpal appellant who is the resident of the same village and whose house is situated nearby the house of Pritam Singh and Puran Singh came there and complained that water from the hand-pump installed in their Gher accumulates in the street creating mud in frog of the house of the accused party. At that time, Satpal appellant was under the influence of liquor and he abused to Pritam Singh and his father Puran Singh in the name of mother and sister. Pritam Singh tried to pacify Satpal. Upon this Satpal left the place for his house by giving a threat that he would not spare Puran Singh and his son Pritam Singh. After a short while he returned to the spot armed with a Gandasi and again started hurting abuses upon the complainant. After about two minutes, three brothers of Satpal Singh namely Mahipal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh along with their uncle Bani Singh (appellants) came there and they were armed with lathis. Mohinder Singh raised a Lalkara to his companions to beat Puran Singh and Pritam Singh as they had been objecting to the filling of the well. Satpal Singh opened the attack and he gave gandasi blow from the reverse side on the head of Pritam Singh, Mohinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Pritam Singh on his head upon which Pritam Singh fell on the ground. Mahipal Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blows to Pritam Singh. Mahipal Singh, Bani Singh and Jasbir Singh further gave lathi blows to Puran Singh followed by Satpal Singh who gave a gandasi blow from the reverse side on the head of Puran Singh who also fell down and became unconscious. The blood came out from the injuries of Puran Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by one Mohkam Singh younger brother of Pritam Singh and two residents of the village namely Sham Singh and Dharam Pal along with many others who reached at the spot. On seeing them, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. Both the injured namely Puran Singh and Pritam Singh were removed to Civil Hospital Yamunanagar by Mohkam Singh and Sham Singh. On the next day, Puran Singh was removed to PGI Chandigarh and after 2 days he died there on 25.10.1987. The report about crime was lodged by Pritam Singh injured witness at 4.30 P.M. on 23.10.1987 when he made a statement before the Assistant Sub Inspector Shri Hari Ram. Before recording the statement of Pritam Singh, the Investigating Officer took the opinion from the doctor about the fitness of Pritam Singh who was declared fit to make a statement. The statement of Pritam Singh was sent to the Police Station Sadar Yamunanagar on 23.10.1987 for the registration of the case and all the accused were arrested on the same day. The Investigating Officer, Shri Hari Ram, visited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and lifted the blood stained earth and made a sealed parcel thereof. This was taken into possession from the cattle shed of house of Puran Singh. After completion of investigation of the case, the appellants were challaned under Sections 302/323/148/149 IPC in the Court of the Area Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 19.1.1988, he committed the accused to the Court of Session to face the trial. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.4.1988 framed the charges against the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Shri Pritam Singh injured. Dharam Pal Sham Singh the residents of the village as the witnesses of the occurrence.
Pritam Singh appearing as PW-10 gave a detailed account of the occurrence. He made, a statement that on 22.10.1987 at 8.00 P.M. he was present along with his father Puran Singh in his Gher when appellants Satpal came in the street in front of their Gher and started abusing by saying that water discharged from the hand pump of the complainant accumulates in the street. The witness also stated that he and his father tried to make him understand but Shri Satpal Singh left the place of occurrence by giving threat that he would teach the injured and his father a lesson. It has also come in the statement of the injured witness that after sometime Satpal armed with a Gandasi and the remaining appellants armed with Lathis came inside the Gher of Puran Singh. Satpal was hurling abuses and Mohinder Singh gave a Lalkara by entering inside the Gher exhorting is co-accused that the complainants should be killed as they had objected to their act of filling the Panchayat well. It has also come in the statement of the injured witness that Satpal opened the attack and he inflicted the Gandasi blow from the reverse side on the head of Pritam Singh followed by Mohinder Singh who gave a Lathi blow on his head as a result of which he fell down and when his father Puran Singh stepped forward in order to save him. Mahipal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blow to his father Shri Puran Singh followed by Satpal Singh who also gave a Gandasi blow from the reverse side as a result of which Puran Singh also fell on the ground. Further, it has come in the statement of the witness that Mahipal Singh and Bani Singh gave one Lathi blow each to Pritam Singh when he was lying on the ground. It has further come in the statement of Shri Pritam Singh injured witness that Dharam Pal and Sham Singh reached the spot when the accused were giving abuses and these witnesses have also witnessed the occurrence. The statement of injured witness Shri Pritam Singh has been corroborated in all material particulars by Shri Dharam Pal who appeared as PW-11.
Further it has come in the statement of Sham Singh who appeared as PW-12 that on the earlier Diwali day, he was present at his house in the evening when Satpal Singh and other accused had gone to the Gher of Puran Singh where Puran Singh along with his son Pritam Singh was present. He went to the Gher of Puran Singh on hearing the abuses and found that the appellants were armed with Gandasi and Lathis and they inflicted the injuries to S/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh, meaning thereby that this witness Shri Sham Singh has given ample corroboration to the statement of Pritam Singh injured and Shri Dharam Pal. The oral account of three witnesses has been corroborated by the statement of Dr. Inderjit Dewan. Emeratis Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Medicine PGI. Chandigarh who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Puran Singh. The post-mortem was conducted by this doctor on 26.10.1987 and he found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased Puran Singh:-
A reddish abrasion 4 x 1.5 cm on the upper part of which there was a lacerated stitched wound. located on the right side of the scalp.oblique in directing going downwards and forwards from a point 2 cm right of middle line and 14 cm above nasion, the lower part reached 8 cm above and 2 cm right of right eye brow. After stitches had been removed the lacerated wound was found to be 1.6 x 0.3 cm and deep to the bone.
A lacerated wound 8 x 2 mm deep to bone located 2 cm below and 1 cm in front of injury No. 1.
Description of skull was present underneath these injuries in an area 10x10 cm. Operation wound is stitched, curved operation would 22 cm long on right fronto-parieto temporal region starting 9 cm above nasion, going backwards downwards and the right to reach right pinna.
There was a craniectomy gap 9 x 7 cm involving right fronto, parietal region of skull located under injuries No. 1 and 2. A fragment of bone 3 x 2 cm was present in the upper posterior part of the craniectomy. A fracture line extended downward for 4 cm from the lower posterior angle of craniectomy towards the temporal region. The dura was open and brain was protruding through the gap, it was soft and lacerated. The laceration was in the fronto parieto temporal region of the brain on right side. It measured 7x6x2 cm. The brain was cedematcus, Tonsils, were grooved. The injuries were ante mortem and in my opinion were caused by heavy blunt weapon. Larynx and tracheae were congested. The right lower lobe of the lung was consolidated while the other lobes of the right lung and that of the left were congested and edematous. The stomach contained 300 cc of dark coffee coloured fluid and had areas of petechail haemorrhage on the mucous membranae. Liver had areas of congestion. All other organs were healthy.
As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was laceration of the brain due to the fractured skull and this injury was caused by a heavy blunt weapon. This injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Though injury No. 2 was very small. Dr. Dewan proved Ex.PA the correct carbon copy of the post mortem report and Exs.P.1 to P.5 are the photographs which were developed in his department and the photos taken at the time of the post mortem examination.
Further the ocular account is supported by PW-3 Dr. K.K. Arora, Medical officer, M.L. Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar who on 22.10.1987 at 11.00 P.M. medically examined Pritam Singh PW and found the following four injuries on his person:-
A lacerated wound 3"x1/4" into scalp deep present on right parietal scalp covered with soft clotted blood.
A lacerated wound 2"x1/4" into scalp deep on frontal scalp I" to the left of midline covered with soft clotted blood I advised x-ray skull. AP and lateral view for injury No. 1 and 2 which were later on fond to be simple in nature after x-ray examination.
A contusion mark 1"x1" on right cheek below right eye The patient was semi conscious, responded to painful stimulai, pulse was 82 per minute, blood pressure 100/60 pupils both eyes equal and reacting to light.
Abrasion 1"x1/2" on the back, 1" to the left of midline at the level of T-8.
As per the opinion of the Dr. Arora, all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PD is the correct carbon copy of the MLR.
This very doctor also medically examined Shri Puran Singh deceased at the first instance and the following five injuries were noticed on his person:-
A lacerated wound 1"x1/4" into scalp deep on right parietal scalp covered with soft clotted blood.
A lacerated wound 1/2"x1/10" into scalp deep on frontal scalp 3" to the right of midline covered with soft clotted blood.
A contusion mark 3"x2" on right temporal scalp.
A contusion mark 2"x1" on right eye-brow. Patient was unable to open his right eye due to ecchymosis present on right upper lids. I advised X-ray skull, AP and lateral view for injuries No. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Patient complained of pain in right shoulder but no mark of external injury was seen. I advised X-ray right shoulder.
As per the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PE is the correct carbon copy of the MLR. The X-ray was advised and on x-ray conducted on 23.10.87, it was found that there was a fracture of skull bone and there was also fracture of right clavicle bone of Shri Puran Singh. Injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life while injury No. 5 was declared grievous. Other injuries were declared simple. Ex.PF is the X-ray report. Exs.P.6., P.7 and P.8 are the relevant skigrams. The doctor also stated that he sent rukka Ex.PG to the Police-Station along with Medico legal report and he also gave opinion Ex.PH/1 on the police application Ex.PH to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit to make a statement. Puran Singh was referred to PGI, Chandigarh on 23.10.1987. On police application Ex.PJ, he declared Pritam Singh unfit to make the statement on 23.10.1987 at about 4.00 A.M. but on the same day he declared him fit to make a statement at 4.00 P.M. vide his report Ex.PJ/1 and PJ/2.
Dr. K. Sridhar, Senior Resident, Neuro Sugery, PGI, Chandigarh while appearing as PW-9, made a statement that Shri Puran Singh who was admitted in the PGI on 23.10.1987 and remained unconscious throughout till his death which took place on 25.10.1987 at 6.50 A.M. The case of the prosecution is further supported by the statement of Shri Hari Ram the Investigated Officer PW-8 who on receipt of the rukka Ex.PG along with MLR Ex.PD and PE, made an entry in the Rojnamcha. He visited the hospital Yamunanagar. He submitted the application Ex.PH before the doctor to ascertain his opinion whether Puran Singh was fit to make a statement or not. Puran Singh was declared unfit to make a statement. He also submitted ExPJ regarding the fitness of Pritam Singh. At 4.A.M. the doctor declared him unfit but at about 4.P.M. he declared him fit to make statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement Ex.PR of Pritam Singh in the hospital and after making an endorsement Ex.PR/1 underneath the said statement, it was sent to the Police-Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PR/2 was recorded by Sub Inspector Prabhu Ram. The witness also stated that he visited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and lifted blood stained earth and two blood stained bags from the spot in the presence of Sham Singh and Mohkam Singh vide Memo Ex.PS and he further prepared the rough site plan Ex.PT of the place of occurrence. He also deposed that he arrested all the five accused on 23.10.1987.
ASI, Om Prakash was also examined by the prosecution as PW5 who obtained the opinion Ex.PM/1 from the doctor to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit to make a statement. PW-7 Shri Isham Singh made a statement that Shri Mohinder Singh appellant suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PO and on the basis of disclosure statement he got recovered 4 lathis P9 and P.12 and Gandasi P.13 which were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PP.
ASI, Prabhu Ram PW-13 deposed that on 25.10.1987 he visited PGI and prepared inquest report Ex.P8 on the dead body of the Puran Singh and further he interrogated Mohinder Singh appellant who in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PO got recovered 4 Lathis and one gandasi from his tubewell Kotha and those were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PP.
On the closure of the evidence of the prosecution the statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The stand of Shri Jasbir Singh, Bani Singh, Mohinder Singh and Mahi Pal was that they were not present at the spot while the stand of Shri Satpal Singh was that he was an army man and has been falsely implicated to ensure that he may be dismissed from services. He stated that he had come to the village on annual leave. It was a Diwali day. At about 9/10 the villages including the residents of the mohalla had tried to close the well in front of his house because there were complaints of the Mohalla Wala that small children used to fall in that well. Pritam Singh and Puran Singh had obstructed the closing of the well even earlier. On that day Puran and Pritam were under the influence of liquor and they came there in order to stop the villagers from filling the well. A scuffle took place between them and the residents of the Mohalla and during the course of scuffle Pritam and Puran Singh had suffered injuries.
When called upon to enter in to their defence they did not lead any evidence.
The learned trial Court believed the story of the prosecution but came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty for the offence under Sections 148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC. Resultantly they were convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the present appeal and the revision by the complainant.
I have heard Shri K.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sanjay Vashisth, learned DAG, appearing on behalf of the State and Shri A.S. Khaira, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
The first effort which was made by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants was that as the occurrence had taken place on 22.10.1987 on a Diwali day but the first information was registered on 23.10.1987. There was a delay in the lodging of the first information report. The submission of the counsel for hue appellants, cannot be accepted. It is a case of the prosecution that S/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh suffered the injuries. Some of the injuries were on the vital parts of the body. Puran Singh became unconscious. In these circumstances, it will always be the anxiety of the attendants to remove the injured to the hospital for the survival fie their lives. An effort was made by the Investigating Officer to obtain the opinion from the doctor on 23.10.1987 itself at 4.00 A.M. and injured were declared unfit to make a statement. Shri Puran Singh was referred to bigger hospital for better treatment. Again an effort was made by the Investigating Officer on 23.10.1987 to obtain the opinion from the doctor at 4.00 P.M. and Pritam Singh was declared fit to make a statement. In this view of the matter. I am not inclined to hold that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may, the delay per se is not fatal in this case.
It was then submitted by the counsel for the appellants that Puran Singh and Pritam Singh were the aggressors as their house was at a higher level. They used to discharge the water from the hand-pump and the water used to accumulate in front of the house of the accused. They and other villagers objected to Puran Singh and Pritam Singh. In fact the dispute had taken place between the villagers on one side and Puran Singh and Pritam Singh on the other but the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. I am not ready to accept this argument also. If Pritam Singh wanted to implicate falsely some assailants there was no difficulty on his part to name the persons who were his co-villagers. Pritam Singh could very easily implicate them also in the present case but he has not done so. Therefore, the conduct of Shri Pritam Singh is very natural when he has named four brothers and their 5th relation in the present crime. It is the admitted case of the appellants that they were neighbours. They must be aggrieved of the alleged act of Puran Singh and Pritam Singh when they were discharging the water from the hand-pump and the said water used to accumulate in front of the house of the appellants. The ball is in the court-yard of the appellants. The present occurrence had taken place on the Diwali day. It is the case of the appellants that Shri Satpal had returned to the village for availing of leave from the army. We know that in this part of the country especially the villagers when they celebrate Diwali a lot of liquor is invariably consumed. Under the influence of liquor, this military man Shri Satpal could not tolerate that water may be accumulated in frong of his house. He must have abused Puran Singh and Pritam Singh and thereafter, he mustered the strength by calling his close relatives Jasbir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Mahipal Singh and Bani Singh who appeared at the scene with deadly weapons. The occurrence as unfolded by Pritam Singh has been supported by two eye witnesses of the occurrence who were attracted at the place of occurrence on hearing the Raula. They have no axe to grind against the appellants. The evidence of Pritam Singh and two eye witnesses is further corroborated by the medical evidence unfolded by the three doctors who firstly medically examined both the injured and thereafter, the opinion of the expert Dr. Dewan who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Puran Singh, further strengthens the case of the prosecution that blunt weapon like the reverse side of the gandasi and lathis were used for the commission of the present offence the preset occurrence is unfolded by a stamped witness Shri Pritam Singh. An effort was made to convince me that Mr. Sham Singh eye witness is an interested witness being the brother of Puran Singh deceased and he and Dharam Pal have been introduced as false witnesses. I am not inclined to accept this contention. Mere relationship is no ground to reject the testimony of a witness. At the most I can scrutinise the statement of Sham Singh with care and caution along with Dharam Pal but in the present set of circumstances, the presence of Sham Singh and Dharam Pal is very much probable because it is the case of the prosecution that there was some commotion before the actual assault. Accused appeared at the scene and they were raising Lalkaras. They objected to the discharge of the water of the hand-pump and in these circumstances, some villagers including the relations of the complainant party must have come at he spot. If Dharam Pal and Sham Singh came at the spot on hearing the Raula, there is no improbability in it. The presence of these witnesses at about 8.00 P.M. on a Diwali Day is most natural because it is always the anxiety of every individual especially in this part of the country, to remain present on Diwali day with his family members. The present occurrence has also taken place in the Gher of Puran Singh from where the blood stained earth was lifted which is clearly suggestive of the fact that the appellants acted as an aggressor.
Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted in the alternative that as the complainant party and the accused party are neighbours and relatives, therefore, leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. I am not inclined to accept this contention. A human life has been lost in this case. The act and conduct of the appellants was such that it was not excusable. They were armed with deadly weapons like Gandasi and lathis. The injured has suffered the injuries on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence which has been awarded by the learned trial Court.
The resume of my above discussion is that the present story of the prosecution has been proved not only from the statement of the injured/stamp witness but also from two natural witnesses who had the cause and occasion to be present at the spot. Further the evidence of the three witness is supported by the medical evidence unfolded by three doctors. There was a motive on the part of the appellants to commit the crime. Four are real brothers and 5th is their relation. They joined heads. They appeared at the scene with a concentrated mind. They constituted an unlawful assembly. The object of the unlawful assembly was to inflict the injuries.
It was also submitted by the counsel for the appellants that at the most the offence u/s 304 Part-II is made out. I am not inclined to accept this contention also. It is a case of multiple injuries. There was no provocation from the side of the deceased or injured witness. The injury on the person of the deceased was on the vital part of the body. There was a fracture of the skull which was found depressed at the time of the post mortem examination. There was a repetition of blows. All these circumstances make out a case u/s 304 Part-I because there was no previous enmity in this case. By maintaining conviction and sentence of all the five appellants their appeal is hereby dismissed.
Reverting to the revision of the complainant, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has already taken care of the miseries of the complainant party. The amount of compensation if realised has already been ordered to be paid to the complainant and the legal heirs of the deceased Puran Singh. The sentence of 7 years, in my opinion is not on the lower side for an offence u/s 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed.