Teja Singh vs State of Punjab

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

Teja Singh has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months.

It has arisen in the following circumstances.

There is an acute party faction in village Umarpura, where the parties reside. There were a number of criminal cases between the members of the two factions.

It is the prosecution case that in the evening of October 30, 1978, at about 8.09 p.m. Jangir Singh and Amar Singh were going to the house of the latter. When they reached near the jhalani of Jhewars, Teja Singh, accused, armed with spear and Ranjodh Singh armed with a gandasa were seen hiding in the halani. Ranjodh Singh raised a lalkara that the enemies had come and they should not go alive. Amar Singh and Jangir Singh ran towards Amar Singh''s house, which was at a short distance. Teja Singh and Ranjodh Singh pursued them. Jangir Singh entered the house. Amar Singh followed him. He tried to close the outer door of the house. While he was in the process, Teja Singh accused aimed a gandasa blow at Amar Singh but it hit the door of the house.

Sakandar Singh and Malkait Singh, who happen to be in the vicinity were attracted by the commotion and witnessed the assailants giving blow. They raised alarm on which both the accused ran away with their respective weapons Sakandar Singh went to the house of Pritam Singh and narrated him the occurrence. With the help of Pritam Singh he arranged for a car and they then carried Amar Singh to Civil Dispensary, Ahmedgarh, reaching there at 9.30 p.m. Leaving Amar Singh at the Civil Dispensary, Ahmedgarh, Sakandar Singh went to Police Station Ahmedgarh and lodged a report there.

Dr. Raj Kumar (PW 1) medically examined Amar Singh at 10.00 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person;

Stab wound size 2 cm x 1/2 cm over the left side of abdomen in the left upper quadrant 4 cm from the midline and 1 cm below the coastal margin. The wound was bleeding and there was corresponding cut in the shit.

The doctor opined that this injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon within six hours of the examination. The injured was conscious, but his condition was serious and he was referred to Civil Hospital, Malerkotal, for treatment. Before that Dr. Garg sent a ruqa to the police station regarding the arrival of Amar Singh, injured. On receipt of this information; Shri Prem Chand, Assistant SubInspector went to the Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, and made an application to record statement of the injured. Shri Sham Nath, SubInspector went to spot and lifted blood stained earth, which was made into a sealed parcel. He prepared the rough site plan. Shri Prem Chand, Assistant SubInspector, also reached the spot. Shri Sham Nath recorded the statement of the PWs and after obtaining a fitness certificate from Dr. A.C. Gupta he recorded the statement of Amar Singh at 4.30 p.m. on October 31, 1978, in the Hospital at Malerkotla.

Ranjodh Singh accused was arrested on November, 2, 1978, and he led to the recovery of a spear. The investigation of the case was conducted by a number of police officers including Shri Gurbinder Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. They found that Teja Singh was innocent, Teja Singh was not arrested. He was also not challaned. After the completion of the investigation a challan was submitted against Ranjodh Singh accused. The learned Magistrate committed Ranjodh Singh, accused, to stand his trial under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.

The learned Additional Sessions summoned Teja Singh, appellant, as an accused under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were tried. Ranjodh Singh was acquitted, but Teja Singh was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

After perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution witnesses have not been able to establish any motive for Teja Singh to cause hurt to Amar Singh (PW). Amar Singh has stated that Sarwan Singh, maternal uncle of his father had civil litigation with Teja Singh, appellant, and as a result thereof succeeded in getting some land. Sarwan Singh then gifted that land to Amar Singh many years back and the latter was in its possession. Teja Singh used to ask Amar Singh to leave that land and go back to his own village. It may be mentioned that Amar Singh does not belong to this village. No cocumentry evidence has been brought on record to establish the litigation between Sarwan Singh and Teja Singh. There was no difficultly in producing a copy of the judgment in the case. Teja Singh has categorically denied this fact. In the absence of documentary evidence, which was easily available, the oral statements of the witnesses on this aspect of the case cannot be believed. Furthermore, the allegations of Amar Singh could not, make sense. If Teja Singh had lost the case in the Civil Courts many years back, he could not expect that Amar Singh will leave the land which, as claimed by him, had been won by a close relation of his after protracted litigation.

It is established beyond doubt that both Sakandar Singh and Malkiat Singh are partymen of Amar Singh. They inimically disposed towards Teja Singh. They are no truthful witnesses. Sakandar Singh has not given straight replies even to simple questions. He was asked if his father was injured by Nikka Singh, uncle of Ranjodh Singh and he stated that he did not know if his father was injured. He further stated that he did not know if Ranjodh Singh was brought up by his uncle Sakandar Singh further stated that he did not know if Jangir Singh (the other eyewitness cited) appeared as a witness in that case. It is difficult to believe that the witness will not know about such things. He was prosecuted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Jangir Singh along with Amar Singh, injured, about 21/2 years prior to this incident. Labh Singh, an uncle of Teja Singh, appellant,appeared and deposed as an eye witness in that case. On a complaint filed by Teja Singh, appellant, this witness and Amar Singh injured and Atma Singh uncle of Malkiat Singh, PW along with others were proceeded against under Sections 107/151, Code of Criminal Procedure. This witness along with his uncle Chand Singh his wife and others were prosecuted for wrongfully confining and beating a police officer and Nirbhai Singh, a cousin brother of Teja Singh, appeared as a prosecution witness in that case. He has pleaded ignorance that his uncle Chand Singh was prosecuted for firing at Avtar Singh, son of Teja Singh, appellant. Malkiat Singh, PW is better than Sakandar Singh. He has also given evasive replies to simple and straight questions. He stated that he did not know if his uncle Atma Singh along with Amar Singh and Sakandar Singh, PWs were proceeded against under Sections 307/151, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a complaint of Teja Singh, appellant. He also stated that he did not know if Chanda Singh, grandfather of the appellant got recovered the panchayat records through police help from the custody of his uncle Atma Singh had filed a complaint against Chanda Singh and police officers. Even the prosecution was not satisfied with the statement of Malkiat Singh. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the prosecution.

It is true that the injured is not likely to leave out his real assailant and substituted another as his assailant falsely at the instance or under the influence of others. There are, however, two salient features of this case. One is that the occurrence had taken place at night. Sakandar Singh has admitted that it was a dark night. So, there could be scope for mistaken identity. Secondly, the first version of the incident does not come from the mouth of Amar Singh, injured. The case was registered on the statement of Sakandar Singh, PW, who has been demonstrated to be inimical towards Teja Singh, appellant, and Ranjodh Singh. By the time Amar Singh regained consciousnes a report had already been lodged and version had been penned. He was faced with a fit accomplish. In this situation it was difficult for him to change the story. Even the ordinary villagers know the significance of the first information report in a criminal case. This village had a long history of violently crimes. So, in view of the influence of Sakandar Singh and Malkiat singh over Amar Singh and the case having already been registered against Rajodh Singh, it was unlikely for him to set up a different version before the police. These fact have to be weighted in the conspectus of the totality of the circumstances. The theory regarding the alibi of Teja Singh at the time of the occurrence was put before the investigating officers at the earliest occasion. It had a spontaneity about it. Karnil Singh and Sant Singh, DWs were examined by the police officers at the earliest occasion and it seems that their statements had impressed them. The allegations of Amar Singh that Gurinder Pal Singh, D.S.P. was partial towards Teja Singh, appellant was inquired into at the instance of Chief Minister but was found baseless. It is true that opinion of the Police Officer regarding the guilt of the accused is not relevant and the alibi based solely on the oral statements ordinarily did not accept it to be sufficient to discard the prosecution evidence, but these two facts do provide a backdraw for appreciating the oral evidence produced by the witnesses. Amar Singh''s statement apart from the factors mentioned earlier suffers from other infirmities. He has introduced two partisan witnesses whose presence at the spot is not very natural. He has not led any documentary evidence in support of the motive. He had been prosecuted by Teja Singh prior to the incident and he had a motive to falsely implicate Teja Singh. His statement has been recorded on the next day though he was conscious when he was taken to Ahmedgarh. It has been thus robbed of its spontaneity.

A further fact which has to be taken into account is the finding of the learned trial Judge that Malkait Singh is not a wholly reliable witness and that he has acquitted Ranjodh Singh though the prosecution witnesses had also implicated him to a lesser extent.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this appeal; set aside the judgment of the learned trial Judge and quash the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him.