State of Punjab vs Darshan Singh and others

V.K. Bali, J.

By this order we propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 52DBA of 1991 preferred by the State of Punjab as also Criminal Revision No. 513 of 1990 preferred by Gurdev Singh son of Arjan Singh as both, the appeal and revision, have been filed challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated February 21, 1990 vide which all the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 302/324/323/149 I.P.C.

Brief facts to the case reveal that on June 21, 1986 at 11.15 PM Gurdev Singh PW 7, as injured eye witness of the occurrence, got his statement recorded to Gurdip Singh, ASI, Police Station Sadar Nabha, wherein he stated that he was resident of Gobindgarh Channa and was doing cultivation. At about 7.30 PM on that day, he along with his brother Bhinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and mother Kako, was irrigating his field. In the adjoining field, Darshan Singh, Pargat Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Nachhattar Singh sons of Sarwan Singh were preparing their field with the help of tractor for paddy plantation. When Sukhdev Singh was preparing the field with the tractor, he dismantled their water channel with the tractor. At this, his brother Bhinder Singh asked them as to why they had dismantled their water course. Thereupon, Darshan Singh, armed with a knife, Pargat Singh armed with a sua, Nachhattar Singh armed with a gandasa, Sukhdev Singh, armed with a gandasa'' Bant Kaur armed with a soti, Surjit Kaur wife of Pargat Singh, armed with a soti and Gurbax Singh son of Surjan Singh armed with a soti came out of their Kotha situated in the field. Immediately on reaching there, Gurbax Singh raised a lalkara that they should not be allowed to go scot free that day. In the meantime, Darshan Singh gave two knife blows on the left flank of his brother Bhinder Singh, who fell down. While Bhinder Singh was lying fallen, Pargat Singh gave him to sua blows hitting him on his back and Bant Kaur gave him soti blows. Nachhattar Singh gave gandasa blows hitting his mother Kako on her head while wife of Pargat Singh gave soti blows to his mother on her right arm. His mother fell down on his brother Bhinder. Then Bant Kaur gave her more soti blows. His brother Gurcharan Singh stepped forward to save them. Then Sukhdev Singh gave him gandasa blows hitting him on his head, resulting into his fall. While he was lying fallen, Pargat Singh gave him maya sua blows hitting him on his abdomen and back. Gurbax Singh gave many soti blows no the shoulder of Channo. He stepped forward while raising an alarm to save them. Then Darshan Singh gave him a knife blow hitting him on his left hand. Bant Kaur gave him a soti blow which hit him on his left shoulder. The wife of Pargat Singh gave one soti blow which hit him on his head. In the meantime, his father Arjan Singh came from the village while raising an alarm whereupon all the accused fled away with their respective weapons. In the meantime, his brother Hari Singh also reached there who took them to the hospital at Nabha in his tractortrolley for treatment but, on the way, his brother Bhinder Singh succumbed to his injuries. He further stated that during fight, they also caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh and Nachhattar Singh in their selfdefence and that prior to that they had no enmity. The fight took place on that day due to dismantling of the water channel. On the statement of Gurdev Singh, formal FIR was registered. The occurrence leading to death of Bhinder Singh, as per the information given by this witness, took place at 7.30 PM on June 21, 1986 and the FIR came to be registered at 11.15 P.M on the same day. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at Nabha at 1.00 AM on June 22, 1986.

The prosecution, in its endeavour to prove the case against the accused, examined Dr. N.K. Jindal as PW1 who had examined Smt. Kako on July 12, 1986. He stated that Kako was admitted in the hospital on June 21, 1986 and was discharged on July 14, 1986. Dr. Sudarshan Lal Jindal was examined as PW 2. He had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Bhinder Singh and found following injuries:

"1. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the anterior chest wall left side in the anterior asillary line, 10 cm below the axilla. Oblique in direction. On pressing the chest, some fluid blood oozed out. On dissection, the wound was going medially and slightly upwards and backwards, piercing the subcutaneous tissue, intercostal muscles in the third intercostal space and corresponding left pleura, left lung on its anterior lateral aspect and came on its medial aspect and then piercing the pericardium at the base of the heart and made a hole in the wall of the pulmonary veins (left). Left pleural cavity was full of fluid blood. Pericardial cavity also contained some blood.

Incised wound 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm close to injury No. 1 in the region of the mid axillary line. Clotted blood was present. Injury was bone deep.

Incised wound 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm on the posterior aspect of left chest wall just below the lower end of scapula. On pressing the chest fluid blood came out of the wound. On dissection, it went medially forward and slightly downwards and piercing the subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscles in the 8th inter constal space left side and injuring the corresponding pleure, posterior aspect of the lower lob of left lung was going through it and came out on its basal surface and then pierced the diaphragm and peritoneous of the stomach. About 500 ml of blood was present in the peritoneal cavity.

Incised wound 2.5 cm X 0.5 cm on the back in the region of 8th thoracic vertebrae just to the right of the mid line obliquely placed. It was bone deep. Clotted blood was present."

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries 1 and 3 which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

Dr. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal was examined as PW 3. He Xrayed Gurdev Singh with regard to his hand and left shoulder region and found no bony injury. Dr. B.K. Chopra, who was examined as PW 4, had medically examined Kako wife of Arjan Singh on June 21, 1986 at 11.15 PM and found following five injuries on her person:

"1. An incised bone wound 7.5 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep. It was obliquely placed on the left frontal region, 7 cm above the root of the nose. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

An incised wound 6 cm X 0.25 cm X bone deep obliquely placed on the left parietal region, was present. It was 11 cm above the upper border of the left pinna. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

A lacerated wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep on the right occipital region, 9 cm above upper border of the right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

Diffused swelling of the middle 1/3rd of the right forearm. No mark of injury was seen.

A contusion 4 cm X 2 cm irregular, reddish on the lower part of the left scapular region."

This witness also examined Gurcharan Singh son of Arjan Singh and found following injuries on his person:

"1. A lacerated wound 3.5 cm X 2.5 cm X bone deep obliquely placed on the right parietal region 7 cm above the upper border of the right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

An incised wound 3.5 cm X 0.75 cm X bone deep, obliquely placed on the right parietal region, 1 cm behind the injury No. 1. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

An incised wound 4 cm X 0.75 cm X bone deep obliquely placed on the left occipital region, 11 cm above the upper border of the left pinna. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

A stab wound 0.25 cm X 0.5 cm on the right side of the abdomen, 9 cm above the umbilicus and 2 cm to the right of the midline.

A lacerated wound 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm irregular on the right side of the abdomen, 2 cm lateral to injury No. 4. Fresh bleeding was present.

A lacerated wound 0.25 cm X 0.25 cm on the upper part of the left side of the abdomen. It was 5 cm to the left of the midline and 12 cm below the left nipple. Fresh bleedings were present.

A stab wound 0.5 cm X 0.25 cm on the back of the right side of the chest, 3.5 cm to the right of the midline and in line with the lower end of the right scapula. Fresh bleedings were present. Xray was advised and injury was kept under observation. Margins of the wound were clean cut.

A stab wound 0.5 cm X 0.25 cm. It was obliquely placed on the back of the right side of the chest, 7 cm below and lateral to the lower end of the right scapula. Margins of the wound were clean cut and curved to each other. Fresh bleedings were present. Xray was advised. Injury was kept under observation. There were corresponding cuts in the shirt worn by the patient for injury 4 to 8.

On June 22, 1986 at 12.10 AM PW 4 also examined Gurdev Singh son of Arjan Singh and found following injuries on his person:

"1. A swelling 2 cm X 1 cm on the left temporal region, 4 cm above the outer end of the left eye brow.

A lacerated wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm on the lateral part of the back of left hand, 2 cm proximal to the base of the little finger. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

Contusion 4 cm X 0.25 cm reddish in colour, irregular on the top of the left shoulder joint. An abrasion reddish in colour, 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm in its lower part was present.

Contusion 6 cm X 2 cm horizontally placed on the upper lateral part of the left arm, reddish in colour.

Swelling 5 cm X 2 cm obliquely placed on the medial part of the left scapular region. Xray was advised."

On the 21st June, 1986 at 8.45 PM he also examined accused Darshan Singh son of Sarwan Singh and found three injuries on his person:

An incised wound 7 cm X 0.75 cm X bone deep. It was obliquely placed on the right frontal perietal region, 14 cm above the upper border of the right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised and injury was kept under observation.

An incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm above the upper border of the left pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised and injury was kept under observation.

An abrasion 0.5 cm X 0.25 cm irregular, reddish in colour on the dorsal aspect of the base of the left little finger."

Injuries 1 and 2 were kept under observation for Xray while injury No. 3 was declared to be simple in nature. Injuries 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas injury No. 3 was caused by blunt weapon.

This very doctor had examined accused Nachhattar Singh son of Sarwan Singh on June 21, 1986 at 9.10 PM and found following injuries on his person:

"1. An incised wound 3 cm X 1 cm obliquely placed on the front of the right forearm, 16 cm above the wrist joint. Underlying tissues were cut. Fresh bleeding was present and Xray was advised.

Complains of pain in whole of the head. No mark of injury was seen.

An abrasion reddish 3.5 cm X 1.5 cm irregular on the top of the left shoulder joint. Movement of shoulder joint was painful. Xray was advised.

A swelling 6 cm X 5 cm lateral aspect of right thigh, 3 cm above the knee joint.

A swelling 3 cm X 1.5 cm. It was obliquely placed on the upper part of the lateral aspect of the right leg. No mark of injury was seen. Movement of right knee joint was painful. Xray was advised."

Injury 1, 3 and 5 were kept under observation while injuries 2 and 4 were declared simple in nature. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries 2 to 5 were caused by blunt weapon. After seeing Xray report, injuries 1, 3 and 5 were declared to be simple in nature on July 3, 1986.

On the same day at 9.30 PM he also examined Sukhdev Singh accused and found following injury on his person:

"A swelling 5 cm X 3 cm on the lower part of the right scapular area. Movements of the right shoulder joint were painful. Xray was advised."

The injury aforesaid was kept under observation for Xray. Later on, this injury was declared to be simple.

On the same day, he also examined Pargat Singh and found following injuries on his person:

"1. An incised wound 5 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep. It was obliquely placed on the left parietal region, 10 cm above the upper border of the left pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised and injury was kept under observation.

An incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep on the left parietal region. It was obliquely placed, 1.5 cm behind the injury No. 2. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised and injury was kept under observation. Complained of pain in the right side of the head. No mark of injury was seen.

A contusion, reddish 9 cm X 2 cm. It was obliquely placed on the right scapular region. Xray was advised.

An abrasion reddish 3.5 cm X 0.25 cm on the lateral, 1/3rd of the left clavicle. Xray was advised."

Injuries 1, 2, 4 and 5 were kept under observation subject to Xray while injury No. 3 was declared simple in nature. Later, injuries 1, 2, and 4 were declared simple while injury No. 5 was declared to be grievous.

On the same day, this witness also examined Bant Kaur and found two following injuries:

"1. A lacerated wound 4 cm X 0.5 cm. It was obliquely placed and was bone deep on the left parietal bone, 11 cm above the upper border of the left pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

An abrasion 0.5 cm X 0.25 cm on the left side of the forehead, 1/2 cm above the left eye brow in its middle. There was swelling, 2.5 cm X 2 cm surrounding the abrasion. Abrasion was reddish in colour."

Injury No. 1 was kept under observation whereas injury No. 2 was declared simple in nature. The injury kept under observation was later declared to be grievous.

The prosecution also examined three injured eye witnesses i.e. the first informant Gurdev Singh as PW7, Smt. Kako as PW13 and Gurcharan Singh as PW12. There is no need to mention the evidence led by the prosecution inasmuch as the accused pleaded right of selfdefence of person and property and did not dispute the occurrence, although it was their case that it is the other party which was an aggressor. After resultant trial learned, Additional Session Judge vide his judgment dated February 21, 1990, acquitted all the accused as has been mentioned above. Bant Kaur, however, died during the pendency of the trial.

In this appeal preferred by the State of Punjab as also Criminal Revision preferred by Gurdev Singh, all that is being argued is that the accused intentionally caused death of Bhinder Singh and they did not have any right of self defence of person or property and for that reason the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside, thus, punishing the accused under various charges that were framed against them.

We have heard Mr. Mehtab Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab as also Mr. M.R. Midha, learned counsel appearing in support of the revision preferred by Gurdev Singh as also Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the accused. We have also perused the entire records. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the whole issue, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of acquittal as the same, it appears to us, has been passed by evaluating the evidence on the crucial issue in a proper and satisfactory manner. It is not disputed that as many as five of the accused had sustained injuries in the same occurrence in which Bhinder Singh died and three others received injuries. Accused Darshan Singh had three injuries on his person. Whereas injuries 1 and 2 were incised wounds, injury No. 3 was an abrasion. Injuries 1 and 2 were on the head of Darshan Singh, even though the same were simple in nature. Nachhattar Singh accused received five injuries, one of which was an incised wound. Sukhdev Singh accused had only one injury which was simple in nature. Pargat Singh received five injuries, out of which injuries 1 and 2 were incised wound. Injury No. 5, which was on left clavicle was declared grievous. Bant Kaur had two injuries, out of which one was a lacerated wound and the other was an abrasion. Both these injuries were declared to be simple. It is conceded position between the parties that if the said accused had a right of selfdefence of person or property, inasmuch as Pargat Singh had received a grievous hurt, that right extended to causing of death of Bhinder Singh and it is thus not a case where the accused might have exceeded their right of selfdefence of person and property. It has come in evidence that the parties are interse closely related. Didar Singh has three sons, namely, Surjan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Arjan Singh. Gurbax Singh son of Surjan Singh is an accused in this case. Bant Kaur wife of Sarwan Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Pargat Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Sarwan Singh are also accused in the case. It is three brothers'' children and wives who have either been injured or killed. Kako wife of Arjan Singh and Gurdev Singh and Gurcharan Singh sons of Arjan Singh were injured whereas his third son Bhinder Singh has died. It has also come in evidence that earlier in point of time, three brothers had a joint holding which was later divided and, therefore, all these people had and continued to have their holdings which are adjoining to each other. The place of occurrence, in our view, has been proved to be fields of the accused. PW8 Jatinder Nath, Halqa Patwati stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan. In his crossexamination, he stated that the khal, over which as per the prosecution version, the fight ensued, is situated in the land owned by Bhagel Singh, Darshan Singh sons of Sarwan Singh accused. This witness also stated regarding ownership of khasra number of Gurbax Singh. He further stated that point ''A'' shown in the plan, where the occurrence is stated to have taken place, was in possession of Bhagel Singh, Darshan Singh etc. sons of Sarwan Singh at the time of occurrence. The prosecution could not lead any evidence on the contrary to show that the place where the parties inflicted injuries to each other, was in possession of the other party. Arjan Singh PW14 stated that the khal was in his ownership as he had purchased the same for Rs. 7500/ from Sarwan Singh to the extent of his half share, and for that a writing was executed but no such writing was placed on records. That apart, his statement that he owned the disputed khal having purchased for Rs. 7500/ came for the first time before the Court. This witness admitted that he had not informed the patwari with regard to purchase of khal from Sarwan Singh nor he had shown any writing pertaining to this khal to the investigator. It these circumstances, the learned trial Judge, in our view, rightly held that the story of purchase was an after thought simply with a view to prop up the prosecution version.

Even though the appeal and revision deserve to be dismissed on the sole ground that the accused have been able to prove their defence version i.e. that they had inflicted injuries to PWs and caused the death of Bhinder Singh in their right of selfdefence of person and property, it may be mentioned here that the learned trial Judge, after perusal of the evidence, came to a firm conclusion that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the medical evidence was also not in tune with the ocular evidence as also that the investigation was tainted and was not above board. He also held that there was omission to explain the injuries on the persons of the accused. The learned trial Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion after perusal of the evidence that was brought on records of the case on the aforesaid issues. That being so, there is absolutely no substance in the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab and the revision preferred by Gurdev Singh and both deserve to be dismissed. So ordered.