State of Punjab vs Santa Singh and ors.

S.D. Bajaj, J.

A year prior, to the present occurrence, Major Singh the grandson of Santa Singh accused had died as a result of electric shock at the tubewell of Kundan Singh PW 3. The accused suspected that Kundan Singh PW 3 had killed Major Singh. However, a compromise was brought about with the intervention of the Gram Panchayat but the accused still nursed a grudge against Kundan Singh PW 3.

On Ist April, 1990 at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. Kundan Singh PW 3 was taking his meals at his house. His wife Smt. Pritam Kumar was also present there. There was electric light. All the accused namely Santa Singh armed with Takua, Mohinder Singh armed with Barchhi, Nikka Singh armed with sua, Madan Singh armed with Takua, Bira Singh armed with kirpan and Dhira Singh armed with Gandasi came there inside the house. Santa Singh accused shouted Lalkara exhorting his coaccused that they should catch hold of Kundan Singh PW 3 and teach him a lesson for causing the death of Major Singh. Saying so, accused Nikka Singh gave a sua blow, hitting Kundan Singh on the right side of his stomach. Accused Mohinder Singh gave barchhi blow on the right side of the abdomen. Madan Singh accused gave takua blow from the blunt side using the same dangwise on the right wrist. Dhira Singh accused gave Gandasi blow from the blunt side which also hit Kundan Singh PW on his right wrist. Santa Singh accused gave Takua blow using the same from its blunt side hitting Kundan Singh on his left elbow. Bhira Singh continued raising Lalkaras that Kundan Singh PW 3 be not spared. Kundan Singh PW 3 and his wife Pritam Kaur raised alarm which attracted Massa Singh and Jagir Singh PWs. (not examined) to the spot. On their arrival and on their intervention, all the accused allegedly ran away with their respective weapons.

On being charged with the commission of offences under Sections 148, 452, 307, 149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code all the six accused and on being individually charged with the commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act accused Mohinder Singh alone pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned in judgment dated March 16, 1982 recorded separately in the two cases aforesaid, one under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused and the other one under section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Mohinder Singh alone, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved from both the judgments of acquittal aforesaid, the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 475 and 476 both D.B.A. of 1983 in the Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, A.A.G. Punjab, for the appellant State, Shri A.K. Kalra, Advocate, for the respondent in both the appeals and carefully perused the relevant record. Both the appeals having been filed in respect of one and the same occurrence are being heard and disposed of together.

Injured Kundan Singh PW 3 and his wife Smt. Pritam Kaur PW 4 both assert with one voice, "About 11/4 years back at about 8.00 p.m. myself and my husband Kundan Singh PW were present in our house. Kundan Singh was sitting on a cot. All the six accused now present in court namely Santa Singh armed with a takua, Mohinder Singh with a barchha Nikka Singh armed with a sua. Madan Singh armed with a takua. Bira Singh armed with Kirpan and Dhira Singh armed with a gandasi came inside our house. Santa Singh accused raised a lalkara that Kundan Singh be taught a lesson for having caused the death of Major Singh. On this Nikka Singh gave a sua blow which hit on the right side of the abdomen of Kundan Singh. Mohinder Singh accused then gave a barchha blow thrustwise which also hit Kundan Singh on the right side of his abdomen. Madan Singh gave a takua blow from its blunt side which hit on the right wrist of Kundan Singh. Dhira Singh gave a gandasi blow from blunt side on the right wrist of Kundan Singh. Santa Singh gave takua blow from its blunt side which hit on the left elbow of my husband Kundan Singh. Bhira Singh accused was wielding his kirpan but he was not allowed to inflict any injury to Kundan Singh because myself, Massa and Jagir Singh had intervened. I raised alarm which had attracted Massa Singh and Jagir Singh inside our house. The accused persons then went outside the house along with their respective weapons."

Dr. (Mrs.) Satinder Iqbal Saggu PW 1 states :

"On 241980 at 1.30 p.m. while posted as Medical Officer, Civil, Tarah Taran, I medically examined Kundan Singh s/o Narain Singh, aged 40 years, Jat Sikh, resident of village Kang and found the following injuries on his person :

Incised stab wound 2.4 cm x 1 cm placed obliquely and 3 cm deep by blunt probe on the right side of the abdomen, 6 cm above and behind the anterior superior alliac spine. Oozing of blooding was present in the wound. Injury was kept under observation.

Lacerated punctured wound 1.2 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm by blunt probe on the right side of the abdomen 5 cm above and 4 cm in front of injury No. 1. This injury was kept under observation.

Two abrasions 2 cm in diameter and 2 cm x 0.75 cm on the right wrist joint lateral aspect.

Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the lateral aspect of left elbow joint. Injury No. 1 was sharpedged pointed weapon and injury No. 2 by blunt pointed weapons and rest by blunt weapons. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were declared as simple. On application dated 15480, Ex. P8 I opined after going through the operation notes that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. My endst. in this respect is Ex. PB/1. I further opined vide this endst. that injury No. 2 was simple in nature."

In crossexamination the witness states, "Injury No. 3, could be caused by a fall. Similar is my reply regarding injury No. C.

The conflict between ocular account of the occurrence narrated by the injured and his wife does not, therefore, reconcile with the medical evidence. In a situation like this the Supreme Court observed in Kalipada Chakraborti v. Smt. Palani Bela Devi, AIR 1953 SC 112; Ram Narain v. State of Panjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 and Lakshmi Singh and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2203 :

"Where the evidence of the witness for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistict expert, this is most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. Where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence.

That if two men armed with spears and two with lathis attacked Sikandar Khan simultaneously, felled him down from the horse and beat him even after he lay prostrate on the ground, it is difficult to believe that the spears would have been used so sparingly as to cause only mild scratches or very minor incised wounds, neither deep, nor long, or wide. In dealing with the injuries found on Sikander Khan, the learned Judges say "We do not think that the evidence of witnesses is of such a character as to be inconsistent with the medical evidence." The test rather is whether it is consistent with the medical evidence and, if not, whether the accused should not get the benefit.

The evidence of the witnesses shows that the deceased had received 4 to 5 lathi blows at the hands of his assailants but the medical evidence shows that he had only one lacerated wound on the scalp a swelling and a few scratches, Out of the ocular evidence many more lathi injuries were expected rather than just a swelling and a few scratches apart from the lacerated wound.

Thus, this is also a very important suspicious circumstance which negatives the truth of the prosecution."

Acquittal of all the six accused recorded by the learned trial Court thus gets affirmed on his score alone.

Besides it, however, there is an inordinate unexplained delay of nearly 13 hours in lodging the First Information Report. The occurrence took place at 7.50 p.m. on 1st April, 1980 while the First Information Report was lodged at 8.45 p m. on 2nd April, 1980. It provides the basis for suspecting that recording of First Information Report was purposely delayed to afford sufficienttime to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. In this case suspicion hardens into a definite possibility. Version set up in the First information Report does not reconcile with the medical evidence of Dr. (Mrs.) Jatinder Iqbal Saggu PW 1 and renders probable the explanation offered by the accused for their false implication on account of grudge emanating from the death of Major Singh grandson of Santa Singh accused at the tubewell of Kundan Singh PW 3.

It was no doubt the duty of the learned trial Court to separate grain from the chaff and find out real assailants who caused injures Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in the medicolegal examination report of Kundan Singh and punish them but as would appear from the discussion hereinbefore, injured himself a also his wife are both themselves to blame for intermixing both the grain and the chaff together in such a way that it was rendered difficult, well nigh impossible for the learned trial Court to do its duty in this behalf

Both the State Appeals filed against acquittal of all the six accused thus get bereft of any merit therein and are consequently dismissed.