State of Punjab vs Harbhajan Singh and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—State is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 19.09.2001, whereby it acquitted accused Palwinder Singh and Devinder Singh sons of Harbhajan Singh by granted benefit of doubt, whereas convicted and sentenced Harbhajan Singh son of Balwant Singh for an offence punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC. In the present appeal, State has claimed setting aside of acquittal of Palwinder Singh and Devinder Singh as well as setting aside of conviction of Harbhajan Singh for an offence punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC, but instead to convict him for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.

The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Surjit Kaur widow of Narinder Singh-deceased made to Inspector Girdawar Ram Pal, SHO, P.S. Vijay Nagar, Amritsar on 24.03.1996 at Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar at about 9.30 am. In her statement Ex.PG, Surjit Kaur stated that on 23.03.1996 at about 10.00 pm, she along with her husband Narinder Singh and brother-in-law Sawarn Singh were talking to each other at their house, when they heard noise of lalkaras being raised in the street. Electric light was on at verandahof the cattle room of the house. She, her husband Narinder Singh and Sawarn Singh noticed that Harbhajan Singh armed with a thhooni(wooden log to support the cart), Devinder Singh armed with a dangand Palwinder Singh empty handed were present there. She stated that Devinder Singh on seeing Narinder Singh raised lalkara to his co-accused that he be killed, as he was not accepting the good living of the accused. Thereafter, Palwinder Singh caught hold of Narinder Singh and Harbhajan Singh gave him a thhooniblow with force on his head. On raising alarm by her and Sawarn Singh, all the accused ran away along with their respective weapons. After arranging for a conveyance, she and Sawarn Singh removed Narinder Singh to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, where the Doctors declared him dead. She further stated that she was waiting for her sons. She made the statement before the police on 24.03.1996 at Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar. On the basis of such statement, ruqa Ex.PG/1 was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case at 9.30 am. On receipt of ruqa Ex.PG/1, FIR Ex.PG/2 was recorded on 24.03.1996 at about 10.35 am. The special report was received by the learned Magistrate at about 4.25 pm on the same day.

Thereafter, Inspector Girdawar Ram Pal prepared inquest report Ex.PC and sent the dead body of Narinder Singh for post-mortem examination. After arresting all the accused and on completion necessary formalities, they were made to stand trial.

To prove its case and to complete the chain of circumstances, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. PW-1 is Dr. Ashok Chanana, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Narinder Singh on 24.03.1996 at about 4.25 pm. He found lacerated wound obliquely placed with clotted blood on the upper aspect of the head. On dissection, the underlying frontal bone was found fractured into multiple pieces and the fractured pieces were piercing into the underlying membrance and brain matter. In his opinion, cause of death was laceration of the brain, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Apart from examining the other formal witnesses and the author of FIR, the prosecution has also examined PW-9 Dr. Inderjit Singh Hundal, who medico-legally examined PW-5 Narinder Singh on 24.03.1996 at about 8.20 pm and found an abrasion 1.4cm x 0.2cm present on the dorsum of right hand. The doctor has also noticed swelling on the left side of the skull. In his cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that the possibility of self suffering the above said two injuries cannot be ruled out.

In their statements recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded false implication due to enmity in the village.

After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court has passed the afore-mentioned order, which is subject matter of present appeal.

The accused have their residential house near the house of the complainant in the same street, whereas the house of PW-5 Narinder Singh is at a short distance but in the same street. Though the prosecution has alleged that Devinder Singh has given two dang blows on the person of PW-5 Narinder Singh, but there is no mention of any such injury caused to Nariner Singh in the first information report. Swaran Singh, the person named in the FIR has not been examined. PW-5 Narinder Singh is medico-legally examined by PW-9 Dr. Inderjit Singh Hundal on 24.03.1996 at about 8.20 pm i.e. after almost 22 hours of the occurrence. As per PW-9 Dr. Inderjit Singh Hundal, such injuries can be self inflicted. Still further, PW-7 Surjit Kaur in her cross-examination stated that Narinder Singh son of Piara Singh reached at the place of occurrence after the same has taken place. In her statement, PW-7 Surjit Kaur has deposed that the accused ran away with their respective weapons after inflicting injuries. Thus, from the evidence of PW-7 Surjit Kaur, there was no occasion with Devinder Singh to cause injuries to PW-5 Narinder Singh at the time of occurrence i.e. on 23.03.1996 at about 10.00 pm. Still further in the first information report, there is no reference of inflicting any injury by Devinder Singh to Narinder Singh and the fact that Narinder Singh has been examined for the minor abrasions after about 22 hours shows that the prosecution story in respect of causing of injuries to PW-5 Narinder Singh by Devinder Singh is highly improbable. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the presence of PW-5 Narinder Singh at the time of occurrence.

The learned trial Court also disbelieved the prosecution story that Palwinder Singh caught hold of the deceased and Devinder Singh exhorted his other co-accused to cause injuries on the person of the deceased. The learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution story that giving of thhooniblow on the person of deceased, when Palwinder Singh has caught hold of the deceased is improbable, as such blow is likely to cause injuries on the person, who has caught hold of the deceased. The trial Court noticed that no injury has been received by Palwinder Singh and that the prosecution story regarding causing of injury upon PW-5 Narinder Singh by Devinder Singh is not believable. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly granted benefit of doubt of Palwinder Singh and Devinder Singh.

Accused Harbhajan Singh has been convicted for an offence punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. The learned trial Court noticed the fact that though the occurrence has taken place on 23.03.1996 at about 10.00 pm, but the statement of Surjit Kaur was recorded on the next day i.e. 24.03.1996 at about 9.30 am i.e. almost 12 hours later. The explanation of Surjit Kaur that she was waiting for her sons and was disturbed, is not convincing as Narinder Singh has accompanied her to the hospital. As per the prosecution case, PW-5 Narinder Singh was with the family of the deceased soon after the occurrence and has accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Had the occurrence taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution witnesses and Narinder Singh received injuries in the occurrence, the prosecution case could have been set in motion soon after the occurrence and not after the delay of almost 12 hours.

The learned trial Court convicted Harbhajan Singh for an offence punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC holding that there was no pre-meditation between the accused to kill Narinder Singh and that it cannot be said that the accused has any common intention to kill Narinder Singh, as it seems to be a case of sudden quarrel. PW-7 Surjit Kaur has deposed that the accused Harbhajan Singh was nursing a grudge against her for the reason that her family is comfortably settled, whereas the family of Harbhajan Singh is not settled. The said motive is too vague to rely upon. It has come in evidence that the house of the accused and that of the victim are close to each other i.e. two houses apart. Between the parties living in neighbourhood, there could be sudden quarrel. In the absence of any proved motive or dis-harmony between two families, the single blow though given with thhoonicannot be said to be inflicted upon the deceased with the intention to cause death. The single blow though forcibly given and on the vital part will only lead to inference that the injury was caused with an knowledge that inflicting of such injury can cause death, but in the absence of any previous enmity and keeping in view the fact that the parties are neighbourers and the weapon of offence i.e. thhooniis found generally in the home of an agriculturist, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that inflicting of injury by Harbhajan Singh was on account of sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation and any intention to kill Narinder Singh cannot be said to be perverse. The view taken by the learned trial Court is a possible view. Such view cannot be said to be perverse, which may entitle this Court to set aside the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. Mere fact that this Court could take a different view could not be sufficient to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.