Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Amar Singh And Ors on 10 July, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
(I) CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M)
State of Punjab ... Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh and others ... Respondents
(II) CRR-60-2002 (O&M)
Gurdip Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Amar Singh and others ... Respondents
Date of Decision:-10.7.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT
Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Manvinder Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents in both the cases.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Amicus Curiae,
for petitioner in CRR-60-2002.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned criminal appeal i.e. CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 filed by State of Punjab as well as criminal revision i.e. CRR-60-2002 filed by complainant - Gurdip Singh challenging the acquittal of accused/respondents in respect of the charges framed against them for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and for enhancement of the sentence.
Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (2)
Vide impugned judgment dated 16.5.2021, the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the accused of charges for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, held them guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
2. It may here by mentioned that 3 accused/respondents namely Amar Singh, Teja Singh and Balbir Singh out of the total 5 accused have already expired and consequently appeal qua them stands abated. The instant appeal consequently survives only qua accused Raj Singh and Jagir Singh.
3. The accused had faced trial in respect of a case arising out of FIR No.209, dated 5.10.1997 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (Ex.P-22) lodged at the instance of complainant - Mukhtiar Singh, wherein he alleged that he is an agriculturist and his father Fauja Singh and his uncle Teja Singh reside in a 'dhani' (house) constructed out of the village and that they (family) were also residing in the said 'dhani'. However, there was a dispute regarding land with his uncle Teja Singh, which was pending in the Court. It is alleged that on 4.10.1997 at about 07:00 A.M. Amar Singh son of Teja Singh etc. were draining out rain water from the passage, but complainant's brother Jagga Singh objected to draining of water through the passage. In the meantime, Amar Singh armed with 'gandasi', Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh armed with 'kirpans', Raj Singh armed with 'sota' all sons of Teja Singh came there alongwith Teja Singh armed with stick and tried to forcibly take away his brother Jagga Singh. The complainant rushed forward to rescue his brother. Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh raised 'lalkara' exhorting their companions to catch hold of complainant and he be not prevented to escape. Amar Singh gave a blow with 'gandasi' hitting the Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (3) complainant on his head from its reverse side. Raj Singh inflicted two blows with 'sota' hitting the complainant on his right cheek and right shoulder. Teja Singh gave a blow with stick hitting complainant's left shoulder. In the meantime, Mal Singh brother-in-law of Jagga Singh reached at the spot and raised alarm upon which the accused fled away from the spot with their weapons.
4. The injured Mukhtiar Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad and upon medical examination, he was found to have sustained 4 injuries. Subsequently, the injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur from where he was referred to Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries in PGI on 5.11.1997. Pursuant to death of Mukhtiar Singh inquest proceedings were conducted and report was prepared. The dead-body was also got subjected to post-mortem examination.
5. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which the police visited the spot and prepared a rough site plan. Statements of witnesses were recorded in terms of provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused Raj Singh, upon his arrest, allegedly suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a stick in the paddy crop in the fields of Mangat Singh. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, Raj Singh led the police party to the nominated place and got the 'sota' recovered. The accused Teja Singh, Raj Singh, Amar Singh and Jagir Singh were produced before the police by Jagir Singh, Lambardar on 9.11.1997. While Amar Singh is stated to have got recovered a 'gandasa', a stick was recovered from Teja Singh. Accused Balbir Singh was Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (4) produced before the police on 22.11.1997 by Jagir Singh, Lambardar and Phuman Singh.
6. Upon completion of investigation challan was presented against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Ferozepur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide commitment order dated 5.2.1998. Learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, to whom the matter was entrusted, framed charges against the accused for offences under Sections 302, 323, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Case on 26.3.1998 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges framed against the accused, examined as many as 10 witnesses. The gist of statements of prosecution witnesses is briefly referred to hereinunder:
PW-1 Dr. Abhik De, whose opinion had been sought by the police on 11.10.1997 regarding fitness of Mukhtiar Singh to make statement, stated that he had declared Mukhtiar Singh unfit to make statement and has proved his endorsement to this effect as Ex.P1.
PW-2 Dr. Pritam Singh Sauna stated that on 6.10.1997, he was posted as Incharge, SMO, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and had got conduted x-ray examination of Mukhtiar Singh under his supervision. He stated that a depressed fracutre was found on the right parital bone. He produced the x-ray report registered as Ex.P4. He further stated that he had operated upon Mukhtiar Singh and that on 11.10.1997 the case was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. PW-3 Dr. Shingara Singh, Medical Officer, Office of Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar stated that he had examined Mukhtiar Singh on 4.10.1997 and had found the following injuries on his person and that while injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 were Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (5) declared simple at the time of examination injury No.1 was referred for x-ray examination and that subsequently upon receipt of report was declared as grievous:
"1. A lacerated wound 5 x 0.5 cm on the right parietal emminence, wound was bone deep. X-ray was advised.
2. Contusion 6 x 3.5 cm on the left side of the neck on the postro-lateral aspect, it was red in colour.
3. Patient complained pain over right shoulder. No external injury mark was visible. Movements at the shoulder were normal.
4. Patient complaining pain over left shoulder. No external injury mark was visible. Movement at the shoulder were normal. "
PW-4 Dr. Surinder Singh, Medical Officer, Department of Anatomy and Forensic Medicine, P.G.I., Chandigarh stated that on 5.11.1997 he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Mukhtiar Singh and had found the following injuries on his person.
"1. Inverted U shape curved operated wound was present over parieto occipital region, starting 6 cm. behind and 2 cm. above right pinna, going forward and to the left curving around the top of scalp and backward to reach a point 4 cm above extrnal occipital protuberance.
2. Partially healed lacerated wound 2 cm from mid line measuring 5 cm x 0.3 cm was present over the right parieto occipital region. Margins of the wound in lower 2/3rd were inverted. Rest was showing healing. Swelling was present around the wound for a distance of two CM. under the above mentioned lacerated wound, there was a craniotomy wound ot he size 5 x 4 cm present over the right posterior parietal region, 3 cm lateral to mid line, over-lying bone flap was absent. All sutures were intact.
3. Sub appnurothc heamotoma of the size 10 x 8 x 1/2 CM was present over right parieto occipital region.
Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (6) Brain Injuries:
Epidural heamotoma of the size 5 x 4 x 05 cm under the cranitomy gap. Dura was stiched under the gap al-round. Laceration of the size 2 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm was present in the parietal lobe on the posterior aspect of right cerebral hemisthere. Tonssils were grove. Brain matter was cedematous. Weight of the brain was 1300 and 80 grams. "
He opined that the cause of death was 'cerebral oedema' due to laceration of brain eppidural heamotoma and brain abscess. He further opined that the injury on the head was sufficient to cause death. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex.P-15.
PW-5 Kewal Krishan, Patwari, who had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and proved the same as Ex.P-17.
PW-6 Jagga Singh brother of deceased stated that on 4.10.1997 when he was present at his 'dhani', then Amar Singh, Balbir Singh, Jagir Singh, Raj Singh and Teja Singh came in front of his house in the street. He stated that Amar Singh was armed with 'gandasa', Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh were armed with 'kirpans', Raj Singh and Teja Singh were carrying sticks. He stated that when the accused started digging in the passage for draining out rain water, he requested not to direct the rain water through the passage, upon which the accused tried to drag him towards their house and when his brother Mukhtiar Singh and his brother-in-law Mal Singh came there to rescue him, Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh raised a 'lalkara' upon which Amar Singh gave a 'gandasi' blow to Mukhtiar Singh hitting on his head from its reverse side. He further stated that Teja Singh gave two blows with sticks to Mukhtiar Singh hitting him on his left shoulder and Raj Singh gave two blows with stick to Mukhtiar Singh hitting him on his right side of his leg and right shoulder and upon which Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (7) Mukhtiar Singh fell on the ground. He further stated that when they raised alarm the accused fled away from the spot.
PW-7 Harmit Singh stated that his father Mukhtiar Singh was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh and died on 4.11.1997 and that he had identified the dead-body of his father Mukhtiar Singh and that his statement was recorded at the time of preparing inquest report.
PW-8 Jarnail Singh, Head Constable stated that on 5.11.1997 the dead-body of Mukhtiar Singh was handed over to him by ASI Gurbux Singh for getting the post-mortem examination conducted, which was got conducted from PGI, Chandigarh. He further stated that the doctor had handed over the clothes of deceased to him, which were taken into possession. He further stated that on 9.11.1997 he was associated with the police party headed by ASI Gurbux Singh when the accused had produced 'gandasi' and sticks, which were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos, which were attested by him. PW-9 ASI Gurbux Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case stated in detail with respect to the investigation conducted in the present case and also proved various documents prepared during the course of investigation including the disclosure statement allegedly made by accused Raj Singh pertaining to his having kept concealed a stick in the paddy fields of Mangat Singh.
PW-10 Mal Singh stated that his sister Simarjit Kaur was married to Jagga Singh PW and that on the day of occurrence, he was present in the house of Jagga Singh and that at about 07:00 A.M. in the morning, when Teja Singh was draining out rain water of his house towards the passage of Jagga Singh, then Jagga Singh objected to the same upon which they had an altercation. Upon Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (8) hearing noises, he alongwith Mukhtiar Singh went to the spot where they saw Amar Singh armed with 'gandasa', Balbir Singh armed with 'kirpan', Jagir Singh armed with 'kirpan', Raj Singh armed with 'soti', Teja Singh armed with 'sota'. He alleged that Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh raised a 'lalkara' exhorting their companions not to spare Jagga Singh. When Mukhtiar Singh tried to rescue Jagga Singh, then Amar Singh gave a 'gandasi' blow to Mukhtiar Singh hitting him on his head from its reverse side. Thereafter, Raj Singh gave two 'sota' blows to Mukhtiar Singh hitting him on his leg and right shoulder. Teja Singh also gave blows with stick to Mukhtiar Singh to his left shoulder. When they raised alarm, the accused fled away from the spot.
8. Upon conclusion of evidence of prosecution, statements of accused in terms of provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied the prosecution case in toto and pleaded false implication. The accused Teja Singh, however, pleaded that on account of a dispute between him and his brother regarding land, an altercation had taken place on the day of occurrence over draining out of rain water and brick bats were exchanged between them, during the course of which Mukhtiar Singh sustained a brick-bat injury. The accused were afforded opportunity to lead evidence in their defence, but they did not examine any witness in their defence.
9. Learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, held that while no offence under Section 302 IPC was made out, but the accused were held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 148, 304-Part II and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly.
10. Aggrieved by acquittal of accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the State of Punjab as well as the complainant have filed the instant appeal as well as the revision petition.
Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) (9)
11. Learned counsel representing the appellant as well as the petitioner in the revision petition stated that it is case where the occurrence is not only stands fully proved from the statement of complainant, but is also virtually admitted by accused - Teja Singh though he had tried to give it a different colour i.e. exchange of brick bats between the parties during the course of which, Mukhtiar Singh is stated to have sustained a brick bat injury. Learned counsel further submitted that since the factum of receipt of injury and the death on account of the said injury is duly established from the medical record, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in acquitting the accused as regards offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
12. As already stated above, 3 accused namely Amar Singh, Teja Singh and Balbir Singh out of the total 5 accused have already expired and consequently appeal qua them stands abated and the instant appeal as well as revision petition consequently survives only qua accused Raj Singh and Jagir Singh.
13. While accused Raj Singh, as per FIR and as per the statement of PW-6 Jagga Singh is stated to be carrying a stick, accused Jagir Singh stated to be carrying a 'kirpan'. However, Jagir Singh is not alleged to have used 'kirpan' and is attributed a 'lalkara' only. The fatal injury on the head of deceased is attributed to accused Amar Singh (since expired). Accused Raj Singh is stated to have given two blows with sticks to Mukhtiar Singh on his neck and right shoulder.
14. While examing the sequence of events, it transpires that it is a case where the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden on account of an objection raised by Jagga Singh, brother of deceased against draining of rain water through the passage. It is a case where only one injury was on the vital part and that too Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) ( 10 ) from the reverse side of 'gandasi' though some of the accused are alleged to be armed with sharp edged weapons.
15. The sequence of events does not show any pre-meditation on the part of the accused. Rather it was only when the accused were draining out rain water from the passage, which was objected to by the complainant that the occurrence had taken place. Initially, there was an altercation between complainant's brother Jagga Singh and Teja Singh and upon hearing noises of their altercation, the other accused were attracted to the spot and injuries were caused. It is the co- accused Amar Singh, who had opened the attack by inflicting an injury on the head of the deceased from its reverse side. Even he did not repeat the injury. The total number of injuries found on the person of the deceased was four out of which one injury was on the head and another on the neck while the remaining two injuries are described as complaints of pain on both the shoulders. The appellants - Raj Singh and Jagir Singh, who are the two surviving accused, are not attributed any fatal blow. Infact, Jagir Singh is attributed a 'lalkara' only and Raj Singh is attributed blows with stick, which, in any case, are in the nature of simple injuries. As already stated, the occurrence was a result of sudden development and not pursuant to any pre- meditation.
16. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse so as to justify reversal of findings as recorded by the Trial Court with regard to acquittal of accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. The case would neither justify conviction of the appellants for a graver offence under Section 302 IPC nor for enhancement of sentence. There is no infirmity in the Pankaj Kakkar 2024.07.15 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-34-DBA-2003 (O&M) & CRR-60-2002 (O&M) ( 11 ) impugned judgment and the same is hereby upheld. Finding no merit in the instant appeal as well as revision petition, the same are hereby dismissed.
17. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
10.7.2024 ( N. S. SHEKHAWAT )
Pankaj JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Pankaj Kakkar
2024.07.15 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document