Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 3 December, 2009
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, Jitendra Chauhan
Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001
DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2009
DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
Crl.A. No.97-DB of 2001
JAGGA SINGH AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
PRESENT: MR. A.P.S. DEOL, SR.ADVOCATE
WITH MS. MANPREET KAUR, ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANTS.
MS. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
This judgement shall dispose of Crl.A.No.68-DB of 2001 as well as Crl.A. No.97-DB of 2001, as both these appeals arise out of a common impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence.
The appellants, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, Jagga Singh, Karnail Singh and Titi Singh have challenged the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.12.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302, 323, 148, 325, 324, 435, 148, 149 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo as under:-
Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -2-
Name of accused- Section Sentence
appellant
Darshan Singh S/o 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
Sukhdev Singh IPC default of payment of fine R.I. for one
month
302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
323/149 R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs.200/-,
IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
148 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in
default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
325/149 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 324/149 R.I. for 9 months and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 435/149 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month Darshan Singh S/o 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in Jang Singh IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 323/149 R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 148 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 325/149 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 324 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 435/149 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine,R.I. for 1 month Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -3- Name of accused- Section Sentence appellant Jagga Singh 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in IPC default of payment of fine R.I. for one month 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 323/149 R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 148 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 325/149 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 324/149 R.I. for 9 months and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 435 IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month.
Karnail Singh 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
IPC default of payment of fine R.I. for one
month
302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
323/149 R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs.200/-,
IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
148 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in
default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1
month
325/149 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 324/149 R.I. for 9 months and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 435/149 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -4- Name of accused- Section Sentence appellant Titi Singh 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in IPC default of payment of fine R.I. for one month 302/149 R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 323/149 R.I. for 1 month and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 148 IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 325/149 R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 324/149 R.I. for 9 months and fine of Rs.200/-, IPC in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month 435/149 R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/-, in IPC default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.9.1997, at 8.15 a.m., Bhola Singh S/o Hardev Singh had made statement (Ex.PO) before Chuhar Singh, Inspector, Police Station Goha, which constituted the formal FIR. Bhola Singh complainant has stated in his statement with regard to the dispute of land between the complainant party and the accused party that Hardev Singh, father of Bhola Singh inherited some property of Dhanna Singh, his uncle, however, Sukhdev Singh, uncle of Bhola Singh had taken possession of the land situated in the area of village Rampur Mander. Hardev Singh, father of Bhola Singh, filed an application for partition of the land and accordingly application for partition was allowed and possession of land measuring 2-1/4 killas on Kulhana road in the area of village Rampur Mander was with Hardev Singh and his family members. Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -5-
On 15.9.1997, at about 6.00 a.m. Bhola Singh, his brother Kaka Singh (now deceased), Satguru Singh and his father Hardev Singh (now deceased) were cultivating the aforesaid land with a tractor and Kaka Singh was driving the tractor whereas. Satgur Singh was sitting beside him. Bhola Singh and his father Hardev Singh were going along the tractor. Darshan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh armed with a gandasa, Sukhdev Singh (now dead) armed with the gandasa, Kanail Singh @ Kala S/o Harnek Singh with a gandasa, Darshan Singh @ Darshe S/o Jang Singh armed with a gandasa, Jagga Singh S/o Nek Singh armed with a gandasa, all residents of Rampur Mander, Titi Singh, armed with a gandasa and Mithu Singh armed with a Sela, residents of Taspura who were the brothers-in-law of Lila Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh emerged out of the Bajra crop field and came to the land which was being ploughed by Bhola Singh, his brother and father. They were raising lalkaras saying that 'they would teach them a lesson for taking the land'. Kaka Singh stopped the tractor and alighted there from. He told them that they should not quarrel and settle the matter amicably. Thereupon, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh gave a gandasa blow which hit on the head of Kaka Singh (deceased), as a result of which he fell down. Sukhdev Singh, accused (died) gave two gandasa blows which hit on the head of Hardev Singh, as a result of which he (Hardev Singh) fell down. Darshan Singh @ Darshe S/o Jang Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Satgur Singh. Karnail Singh @ Kala S/o Harnek Singh gave a gandasa blow on the right leg of Hardev Singh. Titi Singh gave a gandasa blow on the left ankle of Kaka Singh. Mithu Singh gave a Sela blow on the right temporal region of Hardev Singh. Thereafter also the aforesaid accused continued causing injuries with their respective weapons on various parts of Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -6- the bodies of Kaka Singh, Hardev Singh and Satgur Singh. In the meantime, Gulab Kaur, mother of Bhola Singh came to the fields with their tea. She also witnessed the occurrence with regard to causing injuries. Bhola Singh, complainant and his mother raised alarm. Meanwhile, Mithu Singh, accused soaked a piece of cloth with diesel and kept that piece of cloth on the tank of the tractor whereas, Jagga Singh, accused set the tractor on fire. When Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh were seen, they were found already dead after succumbing to the injuries. Thereafter all the accused decamped from the spot with the respective weapons. Satgur Singh, brother of the complainant was lying in injured condition. Gulab Kaur, mother of the complainant was left with Satgur Singh, while Bhola Singh, complainant went to Chuhar Singh, chowkidar of the village. Chuhar Singh, chowkidar was sent to the spot.
The motive behind the occurrence, as stated by Bhola Singh complainant is that earlier to the occurrence, Kaka Singh, Bhola Singh, complainant, Satgur Singh, Hardev Singh and another person from village Rampur Munder caused injuries on the person of Lila Singh S/o Hardev Singh and a criminal case was registered against them (complainant party). On account of that reason, the injuries were caused by the accused on the persons of Kaka Singh, Hardev Singh and Satgur Singh resulting into the death of Kaka Singh and Hardev, Singh. After lodging of the report, Bhola Singh, complainant, Chuhaar Singh, Inspector and other police officials came to the spot. Satgur Singh was lying in injured condition when the complainant and the police came there. Gulab Kaur and Chuhar Singh, chowkidar were present with Satgur Singh, injured. At that time, Satgur Singh was sent in a canter to Civil Hospital, Budhlada and Bhola Singh Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -7- accompanied in that Canter. Inquest report (Ex.PB) of the dead body of Hardev Singh was prepared. Thereafter, inquest report (PF) of the dead body of Kaka Singh was also prepared. Tractor 735 Swaraj bearing registration No.PBL 9882 (Ex.P4) was taken into possession from the field vide memo Ex.PQ/4 the tractor was burnt to some extent. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh were got conducted. Thereafter, Inspector Chuhar Singh reached Civil Hospital Budhlada at about 8.00 p.m. and moved an application (Ex.PH) seeking the opinion of the Doctor, as to whether Satgur Singh, injured was fit to make a statement. The Doctor vide his endorsement (Ex.PH/1) opined that Satgur Singh was fit to make statement. Thereupon his statement was recorded and clothes of Satgur Singh, injured, were sealed and the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PT).
On 24.9.1997, Chuhar Singh, Inspector accompanied by other police officials was present at bus Stand, Rampur Munder, where Bhola Singh, complainant met him and he was joined in the Police party. In the meantime, Surja Singh, Sarpanch produced before him accused Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh and Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, accused and they were arrested. On interrogation, Sukhdev Singh, accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a gandasa under the heap of cotton sticks in his residential house in the area of village of Rampur Munder, of which he only knew and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement (Ex.PQ) was recorded. Thereafter, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, accused was interrogated and disclosed that he had kept concealed gandasa under the hay lying in a room in his residential house in the area of village Rampur Mander of which he only Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -8- knew and could get the same recovered. His statement (Ex.PL) was also reduced into writing. Thereafter, Darshan Singh @ Darshe also suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PX) that he had kept concealed a gandasa under the hay in his residential house of which he only knew and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, Sukhdev Singh accused got recovered gandasa (Ex.P15) the blade whereof was stained with blood, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh got recovered gandassa (Ex.P16), Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh got recovered gandasa (Ex.P17). The rough sketch of the gandasas was prepared and the same were converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession. On 25.9.1997, Titi Singh and Mithu Singh, accused were produced before Inspector Chuhar Singh and they were arrested. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PY) suffered by Titi Singh and disclosure statement (Ex.PZ) suffered by Mithu Singh, gandasas (Ex.P18 and P19) and the same were made into sealed parcels and were taken into possession. On 26.9.1997, Jagga Singh, accused was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PAA) and Karnail Singh, accused also suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PBB) and thereafter Karnail Singh, accused got recovered gandasa (PW20) from the disclosed place and Jagga Singh got recovered gandasa (Ex.P21). The aforesaid gandasas were taken into possession by sealing the same separately. Binder Singh, accused was arrested on 23.10.1997.
It is to be mention here that names of Karnail Singh, Titi Singh and Mithu Singh were mentioned in column No.2 in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. And on an application filed by the State, all the said three accused were ordered to be summoned vide order dated 20.3.1998.
After completion of all the formalities and investigation, Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -9- challan under Section 148, 302, 452, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 149 IPC was presented in the Court.
The case was committed vide order dated 12.12.1997. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge-sheeted under Section 148, 302, 325,324, 323 and 435 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. PW1 Dr. Kashmir Singh conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Hardev Singh and found the following injuries:-
"1. An incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on occipital region towards right side. Clotted blood was present. On dissection occipital bone cut, meniges were lacerated, cerebral hemisphere injured. There was collection of blood in the posterior craneal fossa Blood vessels were injured.
2. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm everted edges clotted blood was present on right temporal region, 4 cm posterior to right eye brow. Underlying bone was cut, meninges were injured.
3. An incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on lateral side of right arm 6 cm above wrist joint. Clotted blood was present, radius bone was fractured, bony projection coming out through the wound.
4. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm on right leg just above the ankle joint. Clotted blood was present wound surrounded by diffuse swelling, read colour. Both tibia fibula were fractured. Blood vessels were injured.Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -10-
5. A lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm on right leg medial side, 4 cm above injury number four, clotted blood was present.
6. A lacerated wound 4cm x 1cm on mecia side of the right leg 3cm above injury No.5. Clotted blood was present.
7. A lacerated wound 3cm x 1cm on right leg, 10 cm below knee joined, surrounded by diffuse swelling clotted blood was present. Tibia was fractured.
8. A lacerated wound 2cm x 1cm on right leg just below knee joint, clotted blood was present.
9. Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm on right thigh, 6 cm above knee joint, clotted blood was present.
10. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm skin deep on right thigh, 4 cms above injury number nine, clotted blood was present.
11. Lacerated wound 3cm x 2cm on left leg just above ankle joint, clotted blood was present diffuse swelling, red in colour, tibia a fibule both fractured."
In his opinion the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the above mentioned injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. This witness stated that injury No.2 on the person of Hardev Singh could be caused with Sela (Ex.P2) and injury No.1 and 3 could be possibly caused with sharp side of the gandasa.
On the same day, at 4.00 p.m. He conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kaka Singh and found the following injuries on the dead body:
"1. An incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm on right side of occipital region Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -11- clotted blood was present. On dissection, there was skin cut subcutaneous tissue, underlying muscle and occipital bone cut. On opening the skull meninges were injured cerebval hemisphere and cerebellum were lacerated, blood was present in the craneal cavity blood vessels were injured.
2. An incised wound 2cm x 1cm on upper lip at mid line. Clotted blood was present, edges were everted, injury crosses through the whole thickness of lip. Upper two middle incisoys teeth were cut, gums were lacerated, clotted blood was present.
3. An incised wound 2cm x 1cm on back of right elbow joint clotted blood was present edges were everted 2 cm deep.
4. Bruise 4cm x 3cm on left leg 4 cm above ankle joint red in colour, tibia an fibule and both were fractured. Blood vessels were injured.
5. An incised wound 4cm x 1cm on right leg 6cm above the ankle joint. Clotted blood was present.
6. An incised wound 3.5 cms x 1 cm on right leg, 4 cm above injury No.5. Clotted blood was present.
7. A lacerated wound 3cm x 1 cm on right leg clotted blood was present. It was lying 2 cm above injury No.6. Underlying bone was visible."
In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death of due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the above mentioned injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. This witness stated that injury No.1, 2, 3 and 5 and 6 could be caused with gandasa blow from sharp edged weapon.
Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -12-
On the same day, at 9.30 a.m. this witness medico-legally examined Satgur Singh, injured and found the following injuries on his person:
"1. An incised wound 9cm x 1cm on occipital region slightly towards left side. Clotted blood was present red in colour. Advised X-ray.
2. An incised wound 5cm x 1cm on posterior side of right area, 5 cm above elbow joint, bleeding was present.
3. An incised wound 1 cm x 0.25 cm n laterial side of left arm.
5cm above elbow joint, clotted blood was present red in colour.
4. An abrasion 1cm x 1cm on left leg 8cm below knee joint bright red in colour surrounded by diffuses swelling.
5. An abrasion 3cm x 1cm on right leg. 8 cm above ankle joint bright red in colour.
6. A diffuse swelling of right ankle joint, red in colour x-ray was advise.
7. An abrasion 10 x 0.75cms on back of chest towards left side read in colour.
8. A diffuse swelling on dorsal side of right hand red in colour x-
ray was advised."Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -13-
Injuries No.1, 6 and 8 were kept under observation while injuries No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were declared simple in nature. On the basis of the x-ray report, injury No.6 was declared grievous, while injuries No.6 and 8 were declared simple in nature. This witness stated that injury No.1, 2, 3 on the person of injured Satgur Singh could be the result of gandasa blow with sharp edged weapon.
Bhola Singh PW4 is the complainant and an eye witness while Satgur Singh PW5 is an injured eye witness. Both the said PWs have made consistent statements as narrated in the prosecution case and despite lengthy cross-examination, they have corroborated the version of the prosecution.
PW6 Inspector Chuhar Singh was the Investigating Officer and he has given all the details of investigation conducted by him in this case.
PW2 and PW4 were the formal witnesses.
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
Accused Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that the land where this occurrence took place was in their possession for the last more than 20 years. The possession of this land was never transferred by any civil or revenue authorities to deceased Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh and Satgur Singh, Bhola Singh, etc. He further stated that they (accused) were keen to take possession of the land, so they colluded with Chuhar Singh, Inspector by giving him bribe so that he might deliver possession illegally to them and for that purpose they collected tractors, 50 miles away from Rampur Munder from their relations at Talwandi Sabo and then they forcibly entered Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -14- in the land and started ploughing it. He further stated that he, Darshan Singh, Siri, and his father Sukhdev Singh went to ease in the field which is situated near the village abadi and found that Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh were driving the tractor. His father told them that land in question belonged to him and his family and they should not take possession of the land in odd hours, i.e. 3/4.00 a.m. and this annoyed Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh and they tried to over-run them under the wheel of their tractor. However, they managed to save themselves by moving here and there and when they found their life in danger, he and his father and other Darshan S/o Jang Singh caused injuries to the complainant party in self defence and property. In the meantime, Satgur Singh also came their with kulhari and one person came to rescue them. At that time he was caused injuries on his chest and chin, then he tried to attack them and when he wielded his weapon towards them, they also caused injuries in self defence and property. He further stated that Inspector Chuhar Singh had tried to rope-in as many as persons as was in league with the complainant party and had planted weapons against those persons who had been found innocent by S.P. Budhlada and the weapons were blood stained with same type of blood in order to involve them in this case. The case was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, Budhlada who had found Titi Singh, Mithu Singh and Karnail Singh innocent. He further stated that he, his father and Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh and one stranger, two deceased, one injured Satgur Singh were present at the spot at the time of occurrence and none else.
Accused Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh had also taken the same pleas as taken by accused Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh.
Accused Jagga Singh pleaded innocence. He stated that he had Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -15- been falsely implicated in this case and he was doing work of labourer. The complainant party wanted to get employment with them on less wages, i.e. why he refused to do work with them. He used to go as labourer to Sukhdev Singh (accused-deceased) and on that reason he has been falsely implicated alongwith the weapon in this case.
Accused Karnail Singh also pleaded innocence and stated that he used to do agricultural work with accused-deceased Sukhdev Singh and on that count the complainant party nursed a grudge against him and falsely implicated him in this case.
Accused Mithu Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His village is situated at a distance of 30 kms. from Rampur Mander and he was not present. The police planted recovery of weapon upon him. He further stated that enquiry was held during the course of investigation, wherein he was found innocent.
Accused Titi Singh reiterated the pleas taken by his co-accused Mithu Singh.
The trial Court after relying upon the eye witness account and the medical evidence and the recovery of weapons of offence made on the basis of the respective disclosure statements, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as narrated in the opening paragraphs.
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, counsel for the appellants has contended that Sukhdev Singh was in possession of the land. It was the complainant side which had come to the fields to take forcible possession. In order to save his property, injuries were caused resulting in the death of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh. It has next been contended that as the complainant side had trespassed into the land which was in possession of the accused-appellants, Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -16- hence the accused exercised their right of private defence and caused injuries. Learned counsel has further submits that the presence of Bhola Singh at time of occurrence was neither natural nor probable. He has submitted that if Bhola Singh had been present at the time of alleged occurrence, then he would have definitely intervened and in that process there was a likelihood that injuries would have been caused on his person also. Learned counsel submits that no mark of the injuries on the person of Bhola Singh clearly indicates that he was not present at the time of occurrence, but was roped in later on. It has also been argued that presence of Bhola Singh at the time of occurrence is also doubtful from the fact that his clothes were not stained with blood. It has further been argued by the counsel for the accused that conduct of the complainant side, specially, that of Bhola Singh was most unnatural as neither the Sarpanch nor Panch or any other respectable of the village was informed by him about the occurrence. It has also been contended that the case of the prosecution is based on evidence of close relatives who were deeply interested and inmical towards the appellants and no reliance should be placed on their testimonies.
Learned counsel has further submitted that as far as accused Jagga Singh is concerned, he is alleged to have set the tractor on fire. Learned counsel submits that no specific injury has been attributed to this accused and further that he was working as a farm labour under Sukhdev Singh and further that he had no motive to cause injuries to the complainant side.
The arguments raised on behalf of the counsel for the accused have been vehemently controverted by the counsel for the State who has Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -17- submitted that it was the complainant side who was in physical possession of the land in dispute on the date of occurrence. They had gone for ploughing the fields and were not armed with any weapons and the attack by the accused with deadly weapons clearly shows that the accused had attacked the complainant side with a pre-meditated mind. Counsel for the State has further submitted that first information report was lodged promptly. The occurrence had taken place at about 6.00 a.m. in the area of village Rampur Mander, which is at a distance of 6 kms. From Police Station Boha. The statement of Bhola Singh, first informant was completed at 8.15 a.m. which constituted the FIR (Ex.PO). It has been urged that the FIR was lodged within two hours of the occurrence, hence there is credibility attached to the prosecution case. Learned State counsel further submits that there was a strong motive on part of the appellants who committed the murder of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh. The land in dispute was in possession of the complainant party and it was the accused who formed an unlawful assembly and had attacked them with deadly weapons in the early morning. Apart from the above, it has also been argued that Bhola Singh had categorically stated that prior to this occurrence, injuries on the person of Leela Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh (now deceased) was caused by him, Kaka Singh, Hardev Singh and an other person and hence the accused nursed a grudge against them, as a result of which Hardev Singh, Kaka Singh were murdered and Satgur Singh was grievously injured. Learned counsel has further submitted that presence of Bhola Singh (PW4) at the time of occurrence was natural. He had retreated when he saw that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and were causing injuries to the complainant party. Learned counsel submits that Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -18- when 3/4 accused were causing injuries indiscriminately, then it is not easy for a person to intervene. Every person reacts differently in different situations. Some persons retreat from the scene of occurrence whereas, some persons try to save the injured. It is contended that no mark of any injuries on the person of Bhola Singh does not show that he was not present at the scene of occurrence.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the statement of the complainant Bhola Singh (PW4) shows that on 15.9.1997, at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant alongwith his father Hardev Singh and his brothers Kaka Singh and Satgur Singh were cultivating their land. Kaka Singh was driving tractor whereas, Satgur Singh was sitting by his side and the complainant and his father Hardev Singh were walking alongside the tractor. At that time, Sukhdev Singh (now deceased), Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, Karnail Singh S/o Harnek Singh, Titi Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, Mithu Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh, Jagga Singh S/o Nek Singh came there from the bajra field raising lalkara that they would teach the complainant party a lesson for ploughing the land. Mithu Singh was armed with Saila, whereas the remaining accused were armed with gandasas. On seeing the accused persons coming, Kaka Singh alighted from the tractor and requested the accused not to quarrel and to settle the matter amicably. Thereafter, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Kaka Singh, as a result of which Kaka Singh fell down. Then Sukhdev Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Hardev Singh, as a result of which he also fell down. Thereafter, Darhsan Singh S/o Dhanna Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of complainant Bhola Singh and Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -19- Karnail Singh dealt a gandasa blow on the right leg of Hardev Singh. Titi Singh gave a gandasa blow on the left ankle of Kaka Singh. Mithu Singh then gave a saila blow on the right temporal region of Hardev Singh. As per the statement of Bhola Singh, all the accused continued to cause injuries to the complainant side, as a result of which Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh died on the spot. Mithu Singh soaked a piece of cloth from the diesel tank of the tractor and Jagga Singh set the tractor on fire. Thereafter, the accused left the scene the occurrence alongwith their weapons. The mother of the complainant also witnessed the occurrence, as she came to the spot with tea. Bhola Singh, complainant left for Police Station, Boha leaving his mother to look after the deceased and the injured. Chuhar Singh, Chowkidar also came to the spot. The statement of complainant PW4 Bhola Singh has fully been corroborated by Satgur S/o Hardev Singh, PW5. He is also an injured witness as he has received numerous injuries including the gandasa injury on his head. He has been injured in the same occurrence and is thus a stamped witness. The statements of both these witnesses have not been shaken in any manner by the defence.
The statements of PW4 Bhola Singh and PW5 Satgur Singh is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence. As per Dr. Kashmir Singh, Medical Officer, PW1, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh and medico-legally examined Satgur Singh found as many as 11 injuries on the person of Hardev Singh, out of which 3 were incised wounds and 8 were lacerated wounds. The Doctor found 7 injuries on the dead body of Kaka Singh, out of which 5 were incised wounds and 1 was lacerated wound, whereas, 8 injuries were found present on Satgur Singh, PW5, out of which 3 were incised wounds Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -20- and 3 were abrasions and 2 were diffused swellings. The injuries found on the dead body of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh, as also on the person of Satgur Singh fully tally with the ocular version given by Bhola Singh, PW4 and Satgur Singh, PW5. Apart from the above, the recoveries of the weapons, i.e. Gandasas and Saila from the accused persons also corroborate the ocular as well as medical version. The recoveries were effected from Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Karnail Singh, Jagga Singh and Titi Singh and saila was got recovered from Mithu Singh, in pursuance to the disclosure statements made by the aforementioned accused. The weapons were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a perusal of the report Ex.PDD shows that human blood was found on the weapons of offence.
Apart from the ocular version, medical evidence and the recoveries effected from the accused, there was also a strong motive on part of the accused to commit the crime. It has come in evidence that Dhanna Singh who was uncle of Hardev Singh (deceased) had got daughters only. He gave his land to Hardev Singh and Mithu Singh S/o Puran Singh, who was uncle of the complainant. The land given by Dhanna Singh was earlier in possession of Sukhdev Singh and his sons. Hardev Singh had filed a petition for partition of the land and thereafter he was given the possession of the land. About 2¼ of land abutting on Kulana road came in the possession of the complainant party. The accused bore grudge on this count. Apart from the above, sometime prior to the occurrence, Kaka Singh, Satgur Singh and Hardev Singh and another person of the village had caused injuries on the persons of Leela Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh and a criminal case was registered against them. The accused had nursed a grudge Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -21- against the complainant party on this count also. It is for the aforementioned reasons that the accused had committed the murder of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh and had grievously injured Satgur Singh, PW5.
In the present case, occurrence took place on 15.9.1997, at about r.00 a.m. in the area of village Rampur Mander. Immediately after the occurrence, Bhola Singh left the dead bodies of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh in his mother's care and left for Police Station Boha which is at a distance of 6 kms. for getting his statement recorded. The statement of Bhola singh was completed at 8.15 A.M. and on the basis of his statement, formal FIR was registered. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the first information report was lodged promptly and without any delay, i.e. within 2 hours and 15 minutes of the occurrence. This also lends credibility to the statement made by the complainant.
Much stress has been laid by the counsel for the accused that it was the complainant side who were the aggressors as the land in dispute was in possession of the accused party. Learned counsel has submitted that possession of the land in dispute had not been delivered in favour of the complainant party. He has submitted that as per Ex.DC, Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, the land in dispute was in possession of Sukhdev Singh. He has further submitted that an amount of Rs.2300/- which was assessed as compensation for the standing crops was never obtained by the accused party which clearly shows that only symbolic possession was given to the complainant party and not actual physical possession.
This argument is without merit as a perusal of Ex.PFF Sanad Taksim and Ex.PGG copy of Rapat Roznamcha shows that the possession was delivered to the complainant party. Apart from the above, the Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -22- complainant side has deposited a sum of Rs.2300/- as compensation and the mere fact that the accused had not taken the compensation would not mean that the possession had remained with the accused side and thus, it cannot be said that the accused had caused injuries in their self-defence in order to protect possession of their land.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the accused party was in possession of the disputed land and the complainant side had trespassed into the land, still mere trespassing into the lands of the accused would not give them a right to commit the murders of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh. The occurrence took place at 6.00 a.m. on 15.9.1997, and at that time the complainant side was completely unarmed. All the accused came armed with deadly weapons which clearly shows that they had a common intention and had come there with a pre-meditated mind to commit the crime. The accused not only killed Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh, but also caused grievous injuries to Satgur Singh, PW5. Thus, even if the complainant party had trespassed into the land in dispute, still the accused had clearly exceeded their right of private defence, if any, by causing two murders and by injuring Satgur Singh, PW5. The accused had intentionally caused the deaths of two persons with a pre-meditated mind and hence their act would not fall within the four corners of private defence of bodies and property.
The last submission made by the counsel for the accused that as far as Jagga Singh is concerned, he was not to be benefitted in any manner even if possession of the land in dispute had come to Sukhdev Singh and his sons. Learned counsel has further submitted that Jagga Singh was working as labourer only and he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -23- further submitted that accused Jagga Singh is alleged to have set the tractor on fire and no separate injury has been attributed to him. It is contended that as this accused was not involved in the previous incident in which some of the persons on the accused side were injured by the complainant side and was not a beneficiary, therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties carefully and find that Jagga Singh was working as labourer with Sukhdev Singh. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated that the complainant party wanted him to work for them, but he refused as they were offering him less wages. No specific injury has been attributed to Jagga Singh, but the specific role attributed to him is that he set the tractor on fire.
After having considered the role of Jagga Singh, we are of the considered opinion that he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. Jagga Singh was not to be benefitted in any manner as far as land in dispute was concerned. Either the land was to go to Sukdev Singh or to Hardev Singh, but Jagga Singh was not going to be a beneficiary in any manner. Even in the previous occurrence, in which some of the accused persons had been injured at the hands of the complainant side, Jagga Singh was not involved, hence we acquit Jagga Singh of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt.
As a result of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully been able to prove that it were the accused Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, Karnail Singh, Titi Singh who had committed the murder of Hardev Singh and Kaka Singh and had grievously injured Satgur Singh. The Crl.A. No.68-DB of 2001 -24- statements of the witnesses, i.e. Bhola Singh, PW4 and Satgur Singh, PW5 inspire confidence and are credible. The defence has not been able to shake their testimonies in any manner and they have given a truthful account of the manner in which the entire occurrence took place. The ocular version has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the recoveries of the weapons.
Resultantly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of Darshan Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh S/o Jang Singh, Karnail Singh, Titi Singh, as recorded by the trial Court and dismiss their appeal. As far as Jagga Singh is concerned, he is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of all the charges. The appeal qua Jagga Singh, appellant is allowed.
In case the accused are on bail, they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence. The bail bonds of Jagga Singh, however, stands discharged.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
December 3, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
Gulati JUDGE