Sukhbir Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Saundu, J.

Sukhbir Singh appellant has, by way of this appeal, challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, dated November 2, 1983, convicting and sentencing him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/; in default one month''s rigorous imprisonment under Section 452, Indian Penal Code and to one year''s rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The coaccused of the appellant, namely, Gurcharan Singh, who was tried alongwith the appellant was acquitted by the trial Judge.

Balkar Singh injured (P. W 2) was working as a seree with the appellant. On October 2, 1982 at about 8 or 9 P. M, the appellant is alleged to have gone to the house of Balkar Singh and asked him to bring some liquor for him, but the mother of Balkar Singh did not allow him to go since it had grown dark. Sukhbir Singh appellant then started abusing Balkar Singh. Surjan Singh and Pakhar Singh witnesses (not examined), intervened and rescued Balkar Singh. After about ten minutes, the appellant alongwith his coaccused came to the house of Balkar Singh. Sukhbir Singh appellant was armed with a gandasi while his coaccused was armed with a dang. Sukhbir Singh caused an injury with gandansi to Balkar Singh which landed on his left hand. However, Saghar Singh (P.W.3) father of Balkar Singh caused one kahi blow hitting Sukhbir Singh on the head in defence of his son. Balkar Singh PW. was medically examined by Hartirath Singh (P.W. 1) On October 3, 1982 at 0. 25 A. M. who found the following injury on his person.

"A small Wound on dorsum of left hand 2 cm. x 12 cm. x 14 em. with very clearcut margins. Blood on margin clotted.

It was declared simple in nature and the possibility of the injury having been self suffered or selfinflicted could not be ruled out. On October 2, 1982 at 10 30 P.M. Sukhbir Singh appellant was examined by the same doctor who found the following injury :

Incised wound on top of scalp 8 cm. x 12 cm. x 1 cm. with active bleeding reaching upto bone."

On October 3, 1982 at about 8.10 A. M. Sukhbir Singh appellant was again examined by the same doctor who found the following injuries :

"1. Incised wound 2 cm. xl/4 cm. xl/4 cm. on under side of right index finger on its dorsum.

A red contusion on left side of back of chest wall 15 cm. x 4 cm.

A red contusion on right side of chest wall on back 10 cm. x 13 cm. in vertical direction.

Red contusion on right side of back Lumber region 10 cm x 113 em invertical direction."

Formal first information report was recorded at police station Dharamkot on October 5, 1982 at 7 P.M. on the basis of statement of Sukhbir Singh appellant. However, the statement of Saghar Singh and Balkar Singh were recorded by the police and the challan was presented against the appellant and his coaccused. Since Saghar Singh was not challaned on the basis of first information report Sukhbir Singh filed a complaint but the versions as given by Saghar Singh and Balkar Singh found favour with the learned trial Judge.

The appellant when examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reiterated his version given by him in F.I.R. as under :

"Balkar Singh was a seree with me with a contract for a year on payment of Rs. 1550/and he had received in advance Rs. 750/ and left my work in between. I demanded the advanced money to be paid to me but he refused to return the money and in this regard father of Balkar Singh inflicted a kahi blow on my head. I am innocent."

However, the appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.

Prosecution, apart from Dr. Hartirath Singh (P.W.1) examined Balkar Singh (P.W.2), an injured, and his father Saghar Singh (P.W.3) as the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Smt. Channo (PW4) was tendered for crossexamination. SubInspector Behari Lal, (PW5) took into possession a turban produced by Smt. Channo. SubInspector Karnail Singh, (P.W. 6) and HeadConstable Roor Singh (P.W. 7) investigated the case.

As is evident from the medical examination the appellant received five injuries out of which two were incised wound one being on the head and of grievous nature, since the bone underneath was cut. On the other hand, there is a solitary injury on the nonvital part of the body of Balkar Singh, PW that is, on the left hand which according to Dr. Hartirath Singh (P.W. 1) could be selfsuffered. It is also pertinent to note that although the alleged occurrence took place at 8 P. M. on October 2. 1982, yet Balkar Singh did not care to get himself medically examined till 0. 25 A.M. on October 3, 1982. On the other hand, Sukhbir Singh injured was examined the very evening at 10.30 P M. In this situation, the version given by the defence appears to be more probable that Balkar Singh selfsuffered this injury to create a defence. Had the appellant and his coaccused gone armed as alleged by the prosecution, they would not have allowed Balkar ''Singh to escape with a minor injury and also would have caused injury to Saghar Singh. The presence of Gurcharan Singh has been doubted by the trial Judge himself. Saghar Singh is such a witness who has gone to the length of saying that even the appellant caused injuries to his wifeChanno although he was confronted with the police statement where he never stated this fact nor was Channo ever medically examined. The main factor which appears to have weighed with the trial Judge is the production of one pagri by Channo before the police alleging that was Sukhbir Singh''s turban. In the first linstance there is no cut mark on the turban nor any stains of blood on the same. Secondly, Smt. Channo was only tendered and was never examined by the prosecution to show the circumstances in which the turban of the appellant was left in the house of Balkar Singh. Even the Investigating Officer has stated in the crossexamination that he never tried to verify as to whose turban it was. The fact that the turban belonged to Sukhbir Singh is neither here nor there.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the case against the appellant does not stand proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Consequently, I give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of lthe charge. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.