Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachhattar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 4, 2013
Nachhattar Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: Mr. Kanwajit Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Siddharth Garg, Advocate,
for the Appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 14.02.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, whereby the appellant, Nachhattar Singh, was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, besides payment of fine of `2000/- and in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. BRIEF FACTS:
2. Surjit Singh (PW4) along with his son Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) and other members of his family was residing at village Lohgarh. The appellant, Nachhattar Singh, and his co-accused, Inderjit Singh, were residing in the same street at Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 2 village Lohgarh, where the house of Pws Surjit Singh and Prit Inder Pal Singh was situate. On 24.11.1997 at about 7.30 A.M. Surjit Singh (PW4) had started from his house for going to the house of Bant Singh Sarpanch for his personal work. Nachhattar Singh (appellant) was roaming in the street in front of the house of Surjit Singh. He (Surjit Singh) enquired from Nachhattar Singh as to why he was taking rounds in front of his house. Hearing the same, Nachhattar Singh proceeded towards his shop and brought a Saila (an instrument made of wood and iron). Surjit Singh returned to his house to bring a stick. Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) and Rajinder Kaur wife of Surjit Singh asked as to what the matter was. Surjit Singh disclosed to them that Nachhattar Singh armed with Saila was standing at the door of their house. All of them reached at the door of their house and seeing them Nachhattar Singh proceeded with Saila towards them. Surjit Singh (PW4) and his son, Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5), snatched Saila from Nachhattar Singh (appellant) and during scuffle Saila was broken. Both the factions started rebuking each other. On hearing the noise, Inderjit, co-accused of Nachhattar Singh, (appellant) armed with Kahi (spade) arrived at the spot by raising exhortation. PW4 and PW5 snatched Kahi from Inderjit in order to save themselves. In the meantime, several persons collected on the spot. Surjit Singh and his family members started disclosing the incident to the people. Finding an opportunity, Nachhattar Singh (appellant) went to the roof of his shop and pelted a brick which hit Prit Inder Pal Singh on his head. Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 3 Resultantly, he fell unconscious. Surjit Singh arranged a vehicle and carried his son Prit Inder Pal Singh to Civil Hospital, Moga.
3. On 24.11.1997, Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh (not examined) received information that Prit Inder Pal Singh was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Moga, in an injured condition. He went to the Police Station, City, Moga, wherefrom a copy of MLR of Prit Inder Pal Singh was collected and, thereafter, went to Civil Hospital,Moga, where Prit Inder Pal Singh was declared unfit to make statement. Since no other person was available to make statement with regard to the occurrence, therefore, he returned to the police station. On 25.11.1997, Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh once again visited Civil Hospital, Moga and Prit Inder Pal Singh was declared fit to make statement and as such his statement (Ex.P15) was recorded. Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh made endorsement (Ex. P15/B) beneath the statement but the FIR was not registered on the said statement since the cognizable offence was not disclosed by that time. On 26.11.1997, injury No.1 on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh was declared dangerous to life and, therefore, finding a case for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34, IPC, FIR (Ex P19) was registered.
4. Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Ex.P23) and took into possession a piece of brick vide recovery memo (Ex.P21). Blood stained bed-sheet belonging to injured Prit Inder Pal Singh was taken into possession vide recovery memo Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 4 (Ex.P16). On the same day, Surjit Singh (PW5) produced one old broken Kahi and one Dang before the police and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex P22). Nachhattar Singh (appellant) and his co-accused, Inderjit, were arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Since the offence under Section 307, IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the said Court. Finding a prima facie case, the substantive charge for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC was framed against Nachhattar Singh (appellant) while Nachhattar Singh and his co-accused, Inderjit (since deceased), were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC.
6. It is apposite to mention here that after framing of the charges, Inderjit-accused had died, therefore, the proceedings were dropped qua him.
7. In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW1 Dr. Vajinder Singh: On 24.11.1977, he conducted X-ray examination of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) and found fracture of left fronto-parietal bone.
PW2 Dr. Ashok Singla: He was posted as Medical Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 5 Officer at Civil Hospital, Moga, and on 24.11.1997 at 9.50 A.M., he medico legally examined Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 1 cm present on left side of skull. 3 cm from anterior hair line and 2.5 cm from midline, direction was slightly oblique. Fresh bleeding was also present. Advised X-ray skull/C.T. Scan.
2. Lacerated would 3 x 5 cm was present on the skull. 1.5cm on left side of midline and 2 cm on the right side of midline. Direction was oblique, from anterior hair line distance was of 8 cm. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray skull was advised.
Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and duration of injuries was fresh. Both the injuries were kept under observation. After seeing the X ray report, he declared injury No. 1 dangerous to life while injury No. 2 was declared as simple. After examination of the C.T. Scan report, he re-affirmed his above said opinion.
PW3 Gurdial Singh: He had prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. P13) of the place of occurrence.
PW4 Surjit Singh: He being the complainant and eye witness reiterated the whole version and fully Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 6 supported the prosecution case.
PW5 Prit Inder Pal Singh: He being injured has also reiterated the facts and fully supported the prosecution version.
PW6 Dr. M.K. Sobti, Neurologist, D.M.C. Ludhiana:
He deposed that after examining the patient and C.T. Scan report, left frontal creniectomy was done. Patient was discharged on 26.12.1997. The injury was dangerous to life.
PW7 Dy.S.P., Anokh Singh: He deposed that on 26.11.1997, he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Dharamkot. He went to the place of occurrence and verified the investigation conducted by Assistant Sub Inspector Sohan Singh and found it satisfactory. On 30.11.1997, Nachhattar Singh (appellant) was produced before him. He interrogated and arrested Nachhattar Singh. On 03.12.1997, after obtaining fitness certificate from the doctor, he recorded the statement of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5).
On completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.
PW8 Dr. Happy Jaiswal: He deposed that C.T. Scan on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh was conducted by a Technician of Feroze General Hospital, Kot Kapura Bye-pass, Moga. He being Rediologist Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 7 working in the said hospital at that time, rendered his report to the effect that both cerebellar hemispheres and brain stem were normal. Air was seen in the intracranial cavity. Sulcal spaces were affected. Both the lateral ventricles were compressed. Depressed fracture left fronto parietal bone with pneumocephalus with cerebral swelling was noticed.
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. In answer to the penultimate question, he replied as under:-
"I am innocent. My family including family of Inderjit Singh are residing in the same house. House of Prit Inder Singh is in front of my house. Prit Inder Singh was asked by female members of our family not to run in front of our door. On this, on the day of occurrence, Surjit Singh armed with Sela like spear and Prit Inder Singh armed with Iron Pipe tresspassed into our house and caused injuries to my father, who was paralytic patient and to ladies on which Inderjit Singh came to rescue there and was caused injuries by Surjit Singh and Prit Inder Singh in self-defence. Inderjit Singh picked up Dang lying in our house and caused injuries to Prit Inder Singh in self-defence and in defence of others, but the complainant party in connivance with police got registered this false case against me and Inderjit Singh (since deceased).
9. In defence, the appellant examined Dr. Avtar Singh as DW-1. He deposed that on 25.11.1997 while working as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Kot Ise Khan, he medico legally Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 8 examined Inderjit Singh, aged about 21 years, resident of Lohgarh, and found the following injuries:
"1. Abrasion 2cm x 0.2cm on the upper and middle part of left eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. Abrasion 1 cm in diameter on the posterior aspect of right shoulder joint. Fresh bleeding was present. Tenderness was present on the injuries.
3. Contusion 11cm x 2cm on the right side of back of chest 4cm lateral to midline. Swelling was present on the injury. Tenderness was also present on the injury. Colour of injury was redish blue."
After perusal of the X-ray report, all the injuries were declared simple. He proved the copy of the MLR (Ex. D1) and its pictorial diagram (Ex. D1/A).
10. HC Kulwinder Singh was examined as DW-2. He had brought the record pertaining to FIR No. 226 (Ex.D2), dated 11.10.2000, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, which was registered at Police Station, Dharmkot, on the statement of Jaswinder Singh @ Raju.
11. After completion of the evidence of both the sides and hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and inflicted the sentence as has been discussed in the Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 9 initial part of this judgment.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was huge delay in reporting the matter to the police and, as such, no reliance could be placed on the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the version as set up by the defence is more probable than that of the prosecution, therefore, the benefit should be extended to the appellant; and that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also the ingredients of Section 307, IPC, are not attracted since Injury No. 1 on the person of injured Prit Inder Pal Singh has not been declared to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature for want of medical aid, rather the same was declared as dangerous to life and it means the same would attract clause Eighthly of Section 320, IPC, attracting the mischief of 'grievous hurt', punishable under Section 325, IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 (2) C.L.R. 497; Dr. A.G. Bhagwat v. U.T. Chandigarh, 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 591; and Single Bench judgments in the cases of Nand Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 801; and Pritam Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 395.
13. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant was on higher side and the order of sentence is liable to be modified. Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 10
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the delay in the present case would not matter since the injured Prit Inder Pal Singh had sustained serious injuries on his head and the priority of his family members was to arrange for proper medical aid just to save his life. He further contended that the appellant has not denied causing of injuries on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh, therefore, the delay, if any, in reporting the matter to the police, is not of much significance in the case in hand. It was also argued that from the FIR, site plan (Ex. P23), depositions of Surjit Singh (PW4) and Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5), it has well been proved that a quarrel had taken place in the street in front of the house of the injured, Prit Inder Pal Singh, and the complainant, Surjit Singh. He further submitted that the accused, Inderjit Singh (since deceased), had allegedly received three simple injuries on the non-vital parts of his body and the prosecution was not obliged to explain the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly believed the version of the prosecution and held the appellant guilty. He further submitted that keeping in view the nature, and location of the injuries as well as the opinion of the doctor that the injury was dangerous to life, the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, recorded by the learned trial Court deserves to be affirmed by this Court. He also contended that appropriate sentence was awarded by the learned trial court, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 11 their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
16. According to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 24.11.1997, at 7.30 a.m., in the street in front of the houses of both the private factions. Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) had received two serious injuries on his head and he was carried to hospital by his father, Surjit Singh (PW4). Dr. Ashok Singla (PW2) had medico legally examined Prit Inder Pal Singh at 9.50 a.m. on 24.11.1997. In his deposition, it has emerged on record that the police visited the hospital on 24.11.1997 and Dr. Mahender Pal declared the patient as unfit to make the statement. At that time, no other person was available in the hospital to suffer the statement. On the next day, i.e. 25.11.1997, Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) was declared fit to make statement and, as such, his statement was recorded by the police and entered into Daily Diary Register since by that time cognizable offence was not made out. After receipt of X-ray/CT Scan report, Injury No. 1 on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) was declared to be dangerous to life, therefore, FIR (Ex. P19) for the offences punishable under Section 307, 323 read with Section 34, IPC, was registered on 26.11.1997.
17. In view of the attending circumstances, it cannot be said that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police. Even otherwise, the defence is not denying that the occurrence had not taken place. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellant, Nachhattar Singh, admitted that Inderjit Singh had Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 12 caused the injury on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) by means of a Lathi, though the manner narrated by the appellant was different than that which was stated by the prosecution witnesses. It is not a case where the complainant had to know the identity of the accused or to arrange for the witnesses. Since the accused were known to the witnesses and the injured as well as his father were the witnesses, therefore, there was no reason for the complainant side to cause delay deliberately in lodging the report to the police and, as such, there is no substance in the first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
18. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, is also not tenable. It is the consistent stand of the complainant, Surjit Singh (PW4) and the injured, Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) that the occurrence had taken place in the street in front of their house. The said fact is corroborated from the site plan (Ex. P23) prepared by DSP Anokh Singh (PW7). Even the draftsman, Gurdial Singh (PW3), who prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. P13), also pointed out that the occurrence had taken place on the spot as propounded by the prosecution witnesses. Even in his deposition, the Investigating Officer, DSP Anokh Singh (PW7), did support the oral version of the eye-witnesses. The injuries, allegedly received by Inderjit Singh, co-accused of the appellant, were simple in nature and on non-vital parts of his body. It is settled law that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the simple and in-significant injuries Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 13 alleged to have been found on the person of the accused side. In fact, such like injuries would fortify the fact that the said person was present at the spot and participated in the occurrence. Therefore, the occurrence had taken place in the street, outside the house of the complainant and in the manner as had been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses.
19. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the ingredients of Section 307, IPC, are not attracted in the present case and, as such, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, is not sustainable. According to the medical evidence, in the shape of statements of Dr. Ashok Singla (PW2), who medico legally examined Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5); Dr. Vajinder Singh, Radiologist (PW1), who radiologically examined the injured, Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5); and Dr. N.K. Sobti (PW6), a Neurologist, at best it can be said that Injury No. 1 on the person of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) was dangerous to life. It is very much clear that none of the medical experts had stated that the said injury was sufficient to cause death but for want of medical aid. Dangerous to life is equal to endangering life. If the injury is of such a nature, then clause "Eighthly" of Section 320, IPC, would be applicable and at best the said injury would be termed as 'grievous injury'. However, the applicability of Section 325 or Section 326, IPC, would depend upon the nature of the weapon used in the crime. If a blunt weapon was used, then the mischief of Section 325, IPC, would be attracted and in case a sharp Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 14 edged weapon was used, then the mischief of Section 326, IPC, would come into play. In the case in hand, the injury on the head of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) has been caused by means of a 'brick' (Ex. P21), which is a blunt object and, hence, the grievous injury on the head of Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5) would attract the mischief of Section 325, IPC.
20. In the matters of Atma Singh and Dr. A.G. Bhagwat (supra), two different Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court held that the injury inflicted by the accused on the person of the injured was opined by the doctor as being "dangerous to life" - the term 'dangerous to life' is synonymous with 'endangering life' within the meaning of clause Eighthly of Section 320, IPC. Accordingly, the accused could be held responsible for causing grievous hurt. Similar view was expressed by two different Single Benches of this Court in the cases of Nand Singh and Pritam Singh (supra). In the matter of Nand Singh (supra), while setting aside the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and converting the same into Section 326, IPC, the sentence of the appellant was reduced to 10 months and 17 days, while in the case of Pritam Singh (supra) the sentence was reduced to three months, however, the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid to the victim.
21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio of the judgments, discussed above, the appellant- Nachhattar Singh is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 307, IPC. However, he is convicted for the offence Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.14 14:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-373-SB-2003 (O&M) 15 punishable under Section 325, IPC. He has already faced the protracted trial and appeal for approximately 16 years; was on bail during pendency of the trial and the appeal, but did not misuse the said concession; no untoward incident had taken place thereafter; and that from the perusal of the affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, it transpires that the appellant is neither required nor involved in any other case, therefore, he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months, besides payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine, if realized, would be converted into compensation and paid to the injured Prit Inder Pal Singh (PW5).
22. With the above modification in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal is partly allowed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
October 4, 2013 JUDGE
Anoop/Pkapoor
Kapoor Prashant
2013.10.14 14:46
I attest to the accuracy
of this order