Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darbara Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 5 August, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:05.08.2013
CRA No.615-DB of 2005 (O&M)
Darbara Singh & others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CRR No.2421 of 2005 (O&M)
Darbara Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. T.S.Sangha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellants in CRA No.615-DB of 2005 and
for the petitioner in CRR No.2421 of 2005.
Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Anita Chaudhry, J.(Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of criminal appeal bearing CRA-D-615-DB of 2005 titled as Darbara Singh & others vs. State of Punjab and a revision bearing CRR No.2421 of 2005 titled as Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, which have arisen out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala in FIR No.56 dated 02.09.2002 registered under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala. Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -2-
Appellant - Darbara Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Remaining three accused - Mai Lal, Jagroop Singh and Sukhmander Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo RI for a period of one year.
There was cross-version to the incident under Sections 307, 323, 511 and 34 IPC and the accused in that case namely Amarjit Singh, Jaswinder Kaur @ Bhuri, Sukhwinder Singh and Naib Singh were acquitted. Darbara Singh in cross-version had preferred a revision petition seeking reversal of the judgment of the trial Court.
Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to advert to the basic facts, which led to the lodging of the FIR. Resham Singh had lodged a complaint with the police and disclosed that he and his brother used to sleep on the roof and they used to urinate on the roof and their neighbour Darbara Singh and his sons Mai Lal and Sukhmander Singh asked them not to do so and they had stopped urinating on the roof but the accused had a grudge. On the previous day at 5.30 pm when Resham Singh was standing in front of Amarjit's house, Mai Lal came on a cycle in drunken condition and stopped his cycle and started abusing him. Resham Singh was a polio patient and when Mai Lal caught him forcefully, he fell down. On hearing the noise, Amarjit Singh's wife Jaswinder Kaur @ Bhuri reached the spot and intervened. Bhuri called out to Mai Lal that he was beating Resham Singh in front of her house and she would give evidence against him. In the meantime, Jagroop Singh also reached Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -3- the spot and shouted at Bhuri that she can do whatever she wanted. Meantime, Bhuri's husband Amarjit Singh came and picked up a brick bat and inflicted a blow on Jagroop Singh's head. There after the parties separated and Bhuri and Amarjit Singh went to the house of Resham Singh. After some time, Darbara Singh armed with gandasa, Mai Lal armed with kirpan, Jagroop Singh and Sukhmander Singh holding soties (sticks) came and attacked them. Mai Lal raised lalkara and Darbara Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Darshan Singh. Mai Lal inflicted kirpan blow on the head of Amarjit Singh while Jagroop Singh and Sukhmander Singh inflicted lathi blow on Darshan Singh and Amarjit Singh. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Bhadaur from where Darshan Singh was referred to Civil Hospital, Barnala where he was declared dead. The investigations were started. Post mortem of deceased was conducted and the injured were got medically examined and thereafter report under Section 173 Cr.PC of cross-version against both the parties was prepared and laid in Court. Charge was framed under Sections 302, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined Amarjit Singh - PW-4, who did not support the prosecution version, complainant - Resham Singh - PW-5 and Naib Singh - PW-6 supported the prosecution case, Sukhwinder Singh - PW-7 partly resiled from the story of the prosecution. The prosecution also examined the investigating officers. Besides these, the prosecution had examined Dr. Raj Kumar- PW-1, who had examined Darbara Singh and Jagroop Singh, Dr. Sunita Goyal - PW-2 had examined Amarjit Singh and Dr. Suresh Kumar- PW-3 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Darshan Singh. He had found the following injuries on the person of Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -4- Darshan Singh(deceased):
1. Incised wound 3 cm x ½ cm x bone deep, on the right side of frontal region of head 6½ cm above the right eye brow 1 cm right to the mid line. Wound was oblique in direction, clotted blood was present. On dissection of injury No.1, there was a cut in the right side of frontal bone. Underlying membrane cut, clotted blood was present in the anterior cranial, fossa (while opening the skull).
2. Incised wound 2 cm x ½ cm x bone on the left side of back of head, 11 cm above the nap of neck 1 cm left in direction. In dissection, NAD
3. Incised wound 3 cm x ½ cm x bone deep on the left side of back of head 9 cm above the nap of neck 1½ cm left to the mid line. Clotted blood was present. Wound was oblique in direction. On dissection, NAD.
4. Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x bone deep oblique in direction, present over the back of right elbow joint.
Clotted blood was present. Correspondint tear present in the kurta. Tear marked and signed. On dissection NAD.
The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock on account of injury No.1, which was on the head and had damaged the brain. The injury was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused pleaded false implication. Accused Darbara Singh stated that a gandasa blow was given on his head and that of Jagroop Singh by Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -5- the complainant and apprehending death they had caused injuries in self defence and the complainant party was the aggressor. Similar statement was made by the remaining accused. No evidence was led in defence.
We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the record of case with their assistance.
At this juncture, it may be mentioned that Darbara Singh - appellant had died on 02.07.2006 as per the custody certificate provided by the State. Therefore, the appeal qua Darbara Singh stands abates and the revision filed by him becomes infructuous.
Learned counsel for the appellants had urged that Amarjit Singh did not support the prosecution version and the motive for the incident was disclosed by Resham Singh - PW-5 but Sukhwinder Singh
- PW-7 does not support the prosecution with respect to the motive. It was urged that there are major contradictions in the evidence and Bhuri, Gurmeet Kaur and Lal Singh, were the main eye-witnesses who have not been examined and it was Lal Singh, who had admitted the injured in the hospital and he has been kept back. It was urged that Lal Singh was the neighbour and an independent witness and his testimony was vital. It was also urged that the ocular version regarding the injuries disclosed by the witnesses do not match with the medical evidence. It was urged that Naib Singh was introduced later and he had stated that no injury was caused to Amarjit Singh. It was urged that no injury is caused with soties nor there is any injury with a kirpan and Resham Singh for the first time had attributed kirpan blow in order to involve all the accused. It was urged that Naib Singh gave the statement to the police on 21.09.2002 and he did not visit the police station and his presence on the spot is doubtful. It was Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -6- contended that Resham Singh had no injury and it is an admitted case of prosecution that some injuries were found on the accused and it has to be seen as to which party was the aggressor.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the case of prosecution has been duly proved and the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court is well reasoned. The appeal should be dismissed.
The statement of Resham Singh - PW-5, the complainant, has to be closely examined to see how the incident had started and what was the motive projected by the prosecution and what evidence was led by them. Resham Singh had deposed that he had gone to the Gugga Mela on 01.09.2002 at 4.00 pm. When he reached on the bridge of village Baloke , Mai Lal met him and started abusing him for the earlier incident. He apologized and return to the village. He was categoric that nobody has protested when they had urinated on the roof of their own house. He had deposed that when he was in front of the house of Jaswinder Kaur @ Bhuri, Mai Lal came there on cycle. He was carrying a gandasa on the carrier of cycle. He abused him and held him. Since he was a polio patient, he fell down on the ground. Resham Singh called out for help and Bhuri saved him. Bhuri came out in full support and told Mai Lal that she would depose against him. He thereafter return to his house and Amarjit Singh and Bhuri also accompanied him. After some time, Darbara Singh, Mai Lal, Jagroop Singh and Sukhmander Singh, who were armed with gandasa, kirpan and soties came in front of his house. His father - Darshan Singh was standing in front of the gate of his house and then Darbara Singh gave a gandasa blow on his forehead and he fell down. Mai Lal gave a kirpan blow, which hit Darshan Singh on his right elbow. The other Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -7- two accused inflicted soties blow. He stated that no other person caused injuries to Darshan Singh. He also stated that his brother Sukhwinder Singh, Naib Singh and his mother - Gurmit Kaur also came there and witnessed the occurrence. He stated that this incident had occurred on account of previous quarrel, which he had with Mai Lal and there was no other motive. The witness was declared hostile as he was not supporting the prosecution version with respect to the motive but the witness stuck to his stand.
In the original complaint lodged by Resham Singh, he had referred to the altercation he had with Mai Lal when he was returning. Resham Singh had also mentioned that he and his elder brother used to urinate on the roof of their house to which Darbara Singh and his sons Mai Lal and Sukhmander Singh asked them not to do so and they stopped urinating on the roof but the accused side nursing the grudge and when he was standing alone on road in front of Amarjit Singh's house then Mai Lal came in drunken condition and started abusing him and gripped him and since he was a polio patient, he fell down. He also mentioned that Bhuri-wife of Amarjit Singh came to his help.
A perusal of the above would show that Resham Singh had spoken for the motive of the incident but when he stepped into witness box, he had stated that the reason for altercation was the abuses, which Mai Lal had held at him when he was returning from the fair. Resham Singh does not refer to the presence of Naib Singh at the time of incident but when he stepped into witness box, he had disclosed that his brother Sukhwinder Singh, Naib Singh and his mother witnessed the occurrence. According to Resham Singh, Amarjit Singh was present on the spot and he had throw a brick at Jagroop Singh - accused. At the trial, Amarjit Singh did not support the prosecution Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -8- version. He was turned hostile. Sukhwinder Singh, real brother of Resham Singh, also partly resiled from his earlier statement.
The presence of Lal Singh had been spoken by the witnesses but he was not examined. The prosecution also failed to examine Gurmit Kaur and Bhuri. They had examined Naib Singh, whose presence on the spot was disputed by the defence. The first statement made by Resham Singh also does not speak about his presence.
Resham Singh had spoken about the injuries inflicted by Darbara Singh. He was the main accused who had attacked Darshan Singh. Darbara Singh had already died and the appeal filed by him stands abated and we have to only look to the role attributed to the remaining three accused. Mai Lal and Sukhmander Singh are the sons of Darbara Singh while Jagroop Singh is the real brother of Darbara Singh. As per the First Information Report, Resham Singh had disclosed that Jagroop Singh and Sukhmander Singh were armed with soties and Jagroop Singh had inflicted a soti blow on Darshan Singh. Mai Lal was stated to have given a kirpan blow on the head of Amarjit Singh. Amarjit Singh did not speak about any injury caused to him by Mai Lal. Since Amarjit Singh did not support the prosecution case, it appears that Resham Singh also assigned a different role to Mai Lal and there is improvement in his statement.
The medical evidence does not support the statement given by Resham Singh. There was no injury with the stick. There was no injury with the kirpan. Kirpan injury was attributed to Mai Lal and the prosecution story with respect to the roles assigned to Jagroop Singh, Mai Lal and Sukhmander Singh appeared to be doubtful. Two prosecution witnesses namely Resham Singh and Sukhwinder Singh Bura Sonia 2013.08.22 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.615-DB of 2005 -9- have made improvements in their statement in the Court, which is not supported by medical evidence. Admittedly, there were some injuries on the side of the accused but they were minor in nature. The police had registered a case also with respect to the cross-version and the complainant-party had faced trial but they were acquitted. The revision filed against the acquittal stands dismissed as infructuous.
The prosecution had held back the eye-witnesses. The complainant has indulged in exaggerations and had changed his version during the course of trial. Amarjit Singh though was injured in the incident does not support the complainant, therefore, considering the above it would not be safe to rely on the prosecution version so far as the role of Jagroop Singh, Mai Lal and Sukhmander Singh is concerned.
For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the appeal filed by Jagroop Singh, Mail Lal and Sukhmander Singh is accepted. The appeal qua Darbara Singh stands abated and revision petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(M.Jeyapaul) (Anita Chaudhry)
Judge Judge
05.08.2013
sonia
Bura Sonia
2013.08.22 15:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh