Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Satnam Singh appellant alias Satti son of Darshan Singh, resident of Guru Nanakpura Mohalla, Ludhiana, stands convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The version of the prosecution as put forth by the prosecution witnesses (P.Ws) is that P.W. Samti Parshad was a Partner of Kiran Saree Palace situated near Girjaghar chowk, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, Satnam Singh alias Satti accused used to set up a phari (stall) for the sale of goggles and Sockes. On 1.7.1980, a chabbil was set up in front of the Kiran Saree Palace for serving water to the passer by. Because of the setting up of the chhabil, the place for phari was narrowed and it affected the sale of Satnam Singh accused who felt aggrieved of it. On 4.7.1980, he put ash in the tub of water meant for chhabil in the present of Dharam Pal P.W. Samti Parshad P.W. told Satnam Singh accused that it was not proper on his part to do. Madan Lal, however told his partner P.W. Somti Parshad that they would collect a gathering of shopkeepers and get the mater settled. On 5.7.1980 at about 8.00 a.m. Samti Parshad came to the shop for storing water in the tub, followed by Madan Lal and Shiv Kumar PWs. On reaching the shop, they found that the takatposh had been moved towards the side of the shop. PW Samti Parshad enquired from Satnam Singh accused as to who had done so. Satnam Singh accused admitted that he himself had done so with a view to putting his plank for sale of socks and goggles. Tarsem Lal PW had also reached there. Satnam Singh accused gave four kirpan blows hitting Samti Parshad on his left flank, chest right leg and right buttock. The accused thereafter, ran away from the spot along with the kirpan. Manak Chand who had arrived at the spot moved PW Samti Parshad injured to the Civil Hospital Ludhiana. At 8.30 on the day of occurrence Dr. Ajit Singh medically examined Samti Parshad injured and found the following injuries on his person :

Incised wound 1" X 1/4" X ? on left side of abdomen 3" above left anterior superior iliac spine.

Incised wound 1/2" X 1/4 X ? on right side of chest in anterior axillary line at level of 8th rid.

Incised wound 1/2" X 1/4 X muscle deep on front of upper part of right leg.

Incised wound 1/2" X 1/4 X muscle deep on back of right buttock in lower part.

On receipt of medicolegal report of Samti Parshad PW, A.S.I. Yug Dutt went to the hospital and after getting the opinion of the doctor as to the fitness of the injured. PW to make a statement, recorded his statement Exhibit PF on the basis of which, F.I.R. exhibit PF/1 was recorded. The same police officer carried out the investigation and completed the formalities required in the investigation.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. Ajit Singh PW 1 who medically examined the injured; Dr. J. Rao Samuel PW 3 who conducted the Xray examination of the injured and proved Xray report Exhibit PE; and Dr. C.M. Singh PW 12 who had operated upon the injured and made the following observations :

"One of the stab wounds which was in the left upper quadrant of the abdomen was explored by making a midline out in the upper part of the abdomen Abdomen was explored and the following findings were noted :

There was 100 mls of blood in the peritoneal cavity.

There was a haematoma near the left part of large intestine. Splenic flexure flolon.

There was 3 cms long wound on the anterior surface of the left kidney. The blood was removed and the haematoma was evacuated and the kidney wound was repaired and the abdomen was closed." The prosecution examined Samri Parshad injured PW 4, Tarsem Lal PW 5, Madan Lal PW7 and Shiv Kumar PW8 eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant took up the plea as under :

"Samti Parshad PW used to raise objection regarding the putting up of the wooden plank near his shop, since it caused obstruction in parking of the scooters. The accused further stated that PW Samti Parshad wanted him to remove the wooden plank but he had refused to remove the wooden plank, since it affected his source of livelihood. He stated that Samti Parshad had poured kerosene oil over the wooden plank and set in on fire and when he had tried to extinguish the fire, Samti Parshad aimed three knife blows and he had picked up a karad (kitchen knife) from the nearby tea stall and wielded it in selfdefence."

The appellant under took to produce defence but ultimately he did not produce any.

Satnam Singh appellant was examined by Dr. Suresh Kumar on 5.7.1980 at 2.55 p.m. and the doctor found three injuries on his person, two incised injuries caused by sharpedged weapon and one abrasion caused by blunt weapon. He proved carbon copy of the medicolegal report Exhibit PD in respect of the appellant. The doctor opined that these injuries could not be self inflicted or selfsuffered. The explanation offered by PW Samti Parshad injured that the appellant received the injuries from his own kirpan, on the face of it, seems ridiculous. It amounts to almost furnishing no explanation. Moreover, the so called explanation did not find any mention in the F.I.R. No. independent witness and been produced by the prosecution although the occurrence took place right in the Chaura Bazar where all the shops were upon at that time. Shiv Kumar PW8 was a helper at the shop of the injured PW while Madan Lal PW7 was a partner with the injured in his business. Thus, they are interested witnesses. In such a thickly populated bazer, the prosecution could not find even a single independent witness. The interestedness of the witness possibly promoted them to conceal the part played by the injured himself in the fight.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Laxhmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1977 Criminal Appeals Reporter 28 (Supreme Court), wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows :

"In a murder case the nonexplanation of injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation in a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences :

That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus not presented the true version :

That the witness who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point, and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; and

That in a case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consist of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which completes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

There is no history of previous enmity between the injured and the appellant. The quarrel occurred almost suddenly and spontaneously. In such a situation, the interestedness of the witness and nonexplanation of the injuries on the person of the appellant would be fatal to the prosecution.

In view of the above discussion, I gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant, allow the appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. Fine, if already paid, would be refunded to him.

JUDGMENT accordingly.