State of Punjab vs Harjinder Singh

H.S. Bedi, J.

These two appeals No. 411DBA of 1989 and 419SB of 1988 filed by the State of Punjab and by Harjinder Singh respectively, who stands convicted for an offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, are being disposed of by this Judgment on the following facts :

On April 14, 1987, at about 7.30 a.m. Jangir Singh PW2 the first informant alongwith his son Malkiat Singh PW3, had gone to the Gurdwara to pay obeisance on the occasion of Baisakhi. While they were coming out of the Gurdwara and then wearing shoes, the accused, who was standing near the pillar of the main gate of the Gurdwara armed with a kirpan, came to the spot and gave one Kirpan blow thrustwise on the abdomen of Malkiat Singh, as a result of which, he fell down at a distance of 3/4 Karams. When an alarm was raised by Jangir Singh PW2, he was also threatened with dire consequences by the accused who also stated that the Malkiat Singh had murdered his father some time earlier and that he had taken his revenge. Saying so, the accused ran away from the spot. Jangir Singh, thereafter, took the injured to his house and then to the Civil Hospital, Moga and on receipt of a wireless message with regard to the arrival of the injured in the hospital, ASI Gurdip Singh PW7 alongwith other police officials reached the hospital and as Malkiat Singh was found to be unfit to make a statement, the statement Ex.PB/1 of Jangir Singh PW2 was recorded instead. This statement was forwarded to the Police Station, Bagha Purana, for the registration of a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code etc. The police officials also visited the hospital as also the place of occurrence and took into possession certain other articles from these places. After completion of the investigation, the accused Harjinder Singh was challaned under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who had medicolegally examined the injured Malkiat Singh in the Civil Hospital at Moga, PW2 Jangir Singh, PW3 Malkiat Singh the first informant and the injured witness respectively, PW7 ASI Gurdip Singh and other formal witnesses as well. Teja Singh and Harbans Singh PWs who were also stated to be eyewitnesses to the incident, were given up by the prosecution as won over.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused refuted the charges and pleaded false implication in this case and stated that he had been falsely roped in and that Jangir SinghPW2 and his son Malkiat SinghPW3 had committed the murder of his father and whereas Malkiat Singh and Jangir Singh had been acquitted, another son of Jangir Singh had been convicted in that case and that as he had filed a revision petition in the High Court against the acquittal of the two alleged murderers of his father, they were putting pressure on him not to press the same and that this case was a pressure tactic to make him desist from pursuing that case. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the eyewitnesses Jangir Singh and Malkiat SinghPW2 and PW3 respectively were trustworthy and that the version of the accused that he had been roped in falsely, could not be believed. However, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the injuries indicated that the offence fell under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 thereof and having so held, sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for three months more. Aggrieved by the judgment aforesaid, the State of Punjab, has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Harjinder Singh has filed an appeal against his conviction, as already mentioned above.

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel in support of the appeal against his conviction, has reiterated the arguments taken before the trial Court. We, however, find that the arguments of the learned counsel lack merit because there could be no case of false implication. Moreover, we have gone through the evidence of Jangir SinghPW2 and Malkiat SinghPW3 and find that they fully support the prosecution case in every material particular.

Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, the learned State Counsel in support of the State appeal has also, however, urged that the offence fell under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the finding of the trial Court that it fell under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, was erroneous. He has drawn our attention to the serious nature of the injury inflicted on the person of Malkiat SinghPW3 and has urged that even the doctor has opined that the injury inflicted was dangerous to life.

We have heard the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter and find some substance in it, but in the light of the fact that the incident had taken place in 1987 and these appeals have been pending since 198889, to allow the State Appeal would be, to our mind, an exercise in futility as we would in any case be loathe to enhance the sentence.

For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.