Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—This case relates to the dare act of the appellant/accused Satnam Singh (herein referred as ''the accused''), who pounced upon the team of public servants consisting of a Sub-Divisional Engineer, Junior Engineer and Assistant Linemen; deterred them from discharging their duties and caused grievous injuries to Amrik Singh, SDE on the back side of his head. Consequently, he was tried and vide judgment dated 21.2.2000, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 326, rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 353, and rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 332 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Originally, the accused was challaned for the offences under Sections 307/353/332/186/324/323 IPC, on the allegations that on 6.6.1997, when Amrik Singh, SDE, PSEB along with Ved Kumar JE, Lakhwinder Singh and Sohan Singh, Assistant Linemen went to village Jande to check the theft of electricity, then at about 10.15 AM, SDE Amrik Singh found the accused stealing electricity by means of running an illegal motor. Amrik Singh asked the linemen to remove the condenser and wire of the motor, on which the accused enraged and exhorted to teach them a lesson. He picked a ''kahi'' (a sharp-edged agricultural tool) lying outside the tube-well and inflicted an injury on the back side of the head of Amrik Singh and two more injuries from its blunt side on his arm. Amrik Singh was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Bhulath. Sub-Inspector Inderjit Singh recorded the statement (Ex.PB) of Ved Kumar, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PE) was registered. On 8.6.1997, the accused was apprehended and on 9.6.1997, on disclosure during interrogation, the ''kahi'' (Ex.P3) was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG.

After recording the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, challan was presented against him.

Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged under Sections 307, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate its charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Narinder Singh (PW1), who had medico legally examined Amrik Singh and found the following injuries on his person:

Incised wound 12 cm x � cm x bone deep on the left side of scalp horizontal to mid-line at the distance of 6 cm and 12 cm from top of left ear. The wound was bleeding profusely.

An abrasion 12 cm x � cm on dorsal aspect of left forearm, 3 cm from elbow joint.

Abrasion 10 cm x � cm on dorsal aspect of left arm from elbow joint extending upward 10 cm. Movements of arm and fore-arm were normal.

He proved the medico-legal report Ex.PA and also opined that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature, while the remaining two were simple. Dalip Singh (PW2) is the drafts man, who prepared the site plan Ex.PD. Ved Kumar (PW3) is the eye-witness. Amrik Singh (PW4) is the injured. HC Amarjit Singh (PW5) and Constable Raghbir Singh (PW6) are the formal witnesses. Dr. S.P. Singh Grover (PW7) is another medical witness and Mangat Rai (PW8) is Additional Assistant Engineer, PSEB, who proved that the electricity officials were on checking duty, while Sub-Inspector Inderjit Singh (PW9) is the Investigating Officer.

The accused in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. He further explained that he was neither cultivating any land, nor had any connection in his name. However, on conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The counsel for the accused has urged that the prosecution has not led sufficient evidence either to prove the ownership of the land or his presence at the spot. Since the accused had no connection with the land, therefore, the question of running the electric meter illegally does not arise.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, the same sans any merit. In order to connect the accused with the guilt, the prosecution has placed reliance on the testimonies of Ved Kumar (PW3) and Amrik Singh (PW4), who are the eye-witnesses. Both these witnesses have consistently stated about the time, place and the manner, in which the occurrence took place. They have stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused was running an electric motor unauthorisedly. When Amrik Singh, SDE ordered to remove the wire and the condenser, the accused attacked Amrik Singh with kahi and caused him injuries. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length, but no such defect could be found in their statements, so as to dub them un-reliable, un-creditable or untrustworthy. The occurrence took place at about 10.15 AM. Ved Kumar (PW3) was prompt enough to make statement before Sub-Inspector Inderjit Singh (PW9) at about 11.50 AM, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded, which reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 9.00 PM on the same day.

It is also established from the evidence of Mangat Rai (PW8) that Ved Kumar as well as Amrik Singh were on duty for checking the motors, therefore, it could well be said that they being the public servants were discharging their official duties. The accused has not revealed any allegation of enmity or animus against any of the prosecution witnesses, for deposing against him falsely.

The question of mistaken identity does not arise as it was a single accused and he had caused a fatal blow with a kahi, which he in all probabilities was carrying at that time. The witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. They had acted in due course of their duties to prohibit him from operating the electric motor unauthorisedly, which enraged the accused to cause injuries to Amrik Singh, Sub-Divisional Engineer.

At the same time, it is not a case, where, some leniency could be shown to the accused. He took undue liberty and by taking law in his hands, without responding to the authority of the public officials, prevented them from performing their official duties. He answered to the legal act in an illegal manner by inflicting injuries on the head of Amrik Singh. Since the accused took the law in his hands and deterred the public servants not only by threats, but by physically assaulting them, therefore, to take a lenient view in such a case would dilute the majesty of the law and would send wrong signals to the society that accused persons of such heinous crime could also be spared.

Hence, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.