State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh

V.K. Bali, J.

Whereas, State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 475DBA of 1992 against the respondents, Baldev Singh and three others, challenging the order of their acquittal under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated March 27, 1992, Bakhtawar Singh, complainant also seeks the same result from Criminal Revision No. 675 of 1992 preferred by him which was ordered to be listed with Criminal Appeal No. 475 DBA of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab. By this order, thus, we shall dispose of both the appeal and revision, mentioned above.

Brief facts of the case reveal that Dilbag Singh and his brother Bakhtawar Singh were injured by Harjinder Singh, Baldev Singh, Swaran Singh and Satnam Singh on September 7, 1987 at 8 a.m. in village Sahlon, which is stated to be seven miles away from Police Station Nawan Sahar. The FIR with regard to this incident was lodged by PW1 Dilbag Singh on September 7, 1987 at 6.10 p.m. Statement of Dilbag Singh was recorded by ASI Jarnail Singh of Police Station Nawan Sahar, wherein he stated that he was resident of village Sahlon and was pensioner from the Army. He was cultivating his own land. His brother Bakhtawar Singh, who lived separately, was also doing cultivation in the village. His house adjoined the house of Baldev Singh Sarpanch. On the eventful day at about 8 a.m., he was standing at the threshold of his house when he heard a noise. He came out in the street and saw that Baldev Singh Sarpanch, armed with Gandasi, Swaran Singh, armed with Gandasi, Harjinder Singh, armed with Gandasi and Satnam Singh, armed with Gandasi were standing in front of the house of his brother Bakhtawar Singh and were hurling abuses at him. Bakhtawar Singh was making entreaties to them. He stepped forward when Baldev Singh raised lalkara saying "Catch hold of them, do not let them go because they were acquitted in the case previously". Upon that, Swaran Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the head of his brother Bakhtawar Singh, who while making the noise of not to beat him, fell down. He stepped forward to rescue his brother while raising the noise when Satnam Singh gave a Gandasi blow to him which hit him on the front side of forehead. Baldev Singh gave another Gandasi blow to him which hit him again on his forehead. Harjinder Singh gave two Gandasi blows from its reverse side to him, one of which hit him on his forehead and the other on his left shoulder blade, as a result of which he also fell down. On hearing the noise, his brother Bachhittar Singh and Dial Singh son of Ram Kishan, also reached the spot. They also raised an alarm and witnessed the occurrence. The assailants ran away with their respective weapons while hurling abuses and threatening. After making arrangement of conveyance, his brother Bachhittar Singh got him and Bakhtawar Singh admitted in an injured condition in Civil Hospital, Nawan Sahar. The doctor there referred his brother Bakhtawar Singh to Jalandhar for treatment. The cause of quarrel was that previously they were acquitted in a criminal case whereas a case was still going on against them in the Court. It is because of this grudge entertained by the accused that they had inflicted injuries to him as also to his brother Bakhtawar Singh.

Dr. Rattan Kalsi, ESI Hospital, Jalandhar had medicolegally examined Bakhtawar Singh son of Hazara Singh on September 7, 1989 at 12.30 p.m. and found following injury on his person :

"An incised wound running anterior posterior region 5 cms from the sagittal suture, in the front parito region, on the right side, measuring 7 x 1 x 1 cms. under lying bone cut. Fresh bleeding was evident. Advised xray".

The witness also stated that injury on the person of Bakhtawar Singh was dangerous to life as declared by Surgical Specialist.

Dr. Sat Pal Banga, PW4 had medically examined Dilbag Singh on September 7, 1987 at 10.35 a.m. and found following injuries on his person :

"1. An incised wound 6 x 0.5 cm bone deep on forehead longitudinal middle of forehead, fresh bledding was present. Advised xray.

Incised wound 4 x 0.25 cms muscle deep above longitudinal on injury No. 1. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised xray.

A bruise on upper right eye lid (black eye) which extended 7 x 2 cms. conjuctiva was congested. Advised xray.

An abrasion on back of left shoulder 1 x 1/2 cm reddish in colour".

After xray examination and receipt of xray report, he declared injuries 1 and 2 grievous in nature. Injury No. 3 was, however, declared to be simple.

This very doctor had also examined respondent Swaran Singh on the same day and had found following five injuries on his person :

"1. An incised wound 4.25 cm x 1 cm. muscle deep on left dorsal aspect of hand on 4th matacarpo phallengeal joint. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

A buise 1 x 1/2 cm on inner side of left little finger reddish in colour. Advised xray.

An abrasion on left ring finger, 2 x 1/2 cm reddish in colour. Advised xray.

An abrasion 4 x 1/2 cm on dorsal aspect of right wrist, reddish in colour.

Brownish contusion 3 x 3 cms below medial side of left wrist joint on left hand. Advised xray".

On xray report, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were declared to simple whereas injury No. 5 was declared as grievous.

Whereas Dilbag Singh was examined as PW1, Bakhtawar Singh was examined as PW2. Both these injured witnesses broadly supported the prosecution version. ASI Jarnail Singh was examined as PW5 to apprise the Court of the investigation done by him in the case.

Respondents Baldev Singh, Satnam Singh and Harjinder Singh, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence and had been falsely implicated. Swaran Singh, however, stated that on the day of occurrence, Bakhtawar Singh, armed with dang, Baldev Singh, armed with Gandasi, Dilbag Singh, armed with Kirpan, Piara Singh, since deceased, armed with Takua, Kuldip Singh armed with Gandasi had caused injuries to him at his Haveli and it is in self defence that he had caused injuries to Bakhtawar Singh and Dilbag Singh after lifting Gandasi which was lying there. On raising alarm by him, Piara Singh was also attracted to the spot who witnessed the entire occurrence. The aforesaid persons had caused injuries to him as earlier Bakhtawar Singh had received injuries at their hands and they had been acquitted.

The learned trial Judge, after appraising the evidence that came on records of the case, returned a finding that the occurrence had taken place at the Haveli of the respondents. The aforesaid finding was primarily based upon the site plan that was produced on records of the case as Ex. PB. In the site plan at point ''B'' Haveli of Baldev Singh, respondent was shown. Point ''B'' was the place where earlier altercation had taken place and there was exchange of abuses. Point ''C'' was the place was the place where the occurrence took place. Taking that fact into consideration as also that there were five injuries on the person of Swaran Singh, one of which was grievous in nature, a firm finding of fact was recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution had not come up with complete truth. We have also gone through the records of the case and, in particular, the statements of the eye witnesses. The findings that the place of occurrence was the Haveli of respondents and that Swaran Singh had also sustained as many as five injuries at the same time when the eye witnesses were injured, could not be seriously disputed before us. It is also proved on records of the case that no explanation was given by PW Nos. 1 and 2 as to how Swaran Singh had received five injuries. It is, thus, a case where injuries on the person of accused Swaran Singh have remained totally unexplained. That being the position, no implicit faith can be placed upon the story propounded by the prosecution and that in itself is enough to give benefit of doubt to the respondents which has rightly been given by the trial Judge.

Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. Resultantly, Criminal Revision also deserves to meet the same fate. So ordered.