Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999
Date of Decision: 9.2.2010
Gurdev Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Mohinder Singh, Balbir Singh, Hardev Singh, Jagdev Singh and Teja Singh were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 11 dated 7.3.1995 registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, under Sections 148, 307, 325, 324, 323 and 149 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who vide his judgment dated 19.8.1999, acquitted Mohinder Singh and Teja Singh of the charges. The present appeal has been filed by the remaining five accused.
The trial Court found Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh substantively liable for offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas Balbir Singh, Hardev Singh and Jagdev Singh were convicted with the aid of section 149 IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 2
The chart prepared by the trial Court is reproduced below to show conviction and sentence awarded to each accused:-
S.No. Name of accused Sentence awarded
and offence
1 All the five convicts To undergo R.I. for a period of
U/s 148 IPC. on e year.
2 Gurdev Singh & To undergo R.I. for a period of
Sukhdev Singh, U/S four years & to pay a fine of 307 IPC. Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two years (2 years).
Balbir Singh, Hardev To undergo R.I. for a period of Singh & Jagdev four years and to pay a fine of Singh U/S 307 read Rs.1000/- each or in default to with Section 149 undergo further R.I. for one I.P.C. year.
3 Jagdev Singh U/S To undergo R.I. For one year 325 IPC. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months.
Gurdev Singh, To undergo R.I. for one year Sukhdev Singh, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
Balbir Singh and each and in default of payment Hardev Singh, U/s of fine to undergo further R.I. 325 read with S. 149 for six months.
IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 3
S.No. Name of accused Sentence awarded
and offence
4 Gurdev Singh U/S To undergo R.I. for one year
324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In
default of payment of fine to
undergo further R.I. for six
months.
Sukhdev Singh, To undergo R.I. for one year
Balbir Singh, Hardev and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Singh & Jagdev each and in default of payment Singh, U/s 324 read of fine to undergo further R.I. with S. 149 IPC. for six months.
5 Balbir Singh U/s 323 To undergo R.I. for six months. IPC.
Gurdev Singh, To undergo R.I. for a period of
Sukhdev Singh, six months.
Hardev Singh &
Jagdev Singh U/S
323 read with S. 149
IPC.
6 Hardev Singh U/s 323 To undergo R.I. for a period of IPC. six months.
Gurdev Singh, To undergo R.I. for a period of Sukhdev Singh Balbir six months.
Singh & Jagdev
Singh, U/S 323 read
with Section 149 IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 4
In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 4.3.1995 at 7.00 A.M. Statement of Amrik Singh was recorded by Piara Singh, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Maur on 4.3.1995 at 11.10 A.M. This statement was recorded in Daily Diary Register vide entry No. 11 on 4.3.1995 as at that time opinion of the doctor regarding nature of injuries was not available. However, this statement, on 7.3.1995, was converted into FIR Ex.PS/1. Amrik Singh, in his statement, stated that he was resident of Sandoha and was doing agricultural work. They are four brothers. The eldest brother Bahadur Singh is residing separately. Three brothers Amrik Singh, Malkiat Singh and Gurdip Singh reside together with their father Harnek Singh. On 4.3.1995 at 7.00 A.M., complainant along with his father Harnek Singh had gone to ease themselves. When they reached in the street, they found Gurdev Singh son of Gamdur Singh armed with gandasa, Sukhdev Singh, Mohinder Singh and Balbir Singh sons of Sajjan Singh, and Hardev Singh armed with gandasas and Jagdev Singh son of Gajjan Singh and Teja Singh son of Leelu armed with dangs. Gurdev Singh raised lalkara and caused injury to father of complainant Harnek Singh in the forehead. Sukhdev Singh also gave gandasa blow in the head. Mohinder Singh gave a gandasa blow from the reverse side in the head. When the complainant stepped forward, then Balbir Singh had caused a gandasa blow from the reverse side in the head. Jagdev Singh gave a push of dang on the mouth of Harnek Singh, who fell on the ground. Amrik Singh raised lalkara which attracted Harjinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh son of Narain Singh at the spot. Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 5 When they came forward to rescue Harnek Singh and Amrik Singh, Hardev Singh gave a gandasa blow from the reverse side on the head of Harjinder Singh. Teja Singh gave a dang blow in the head of Harjinder Singh. Gurdev Singh gave a gandasa blow in the head of Sukhdev Singh. Mohinder Singh gave a gandasa blow from the reverse side on the back side of his head. Sukhdev Singh raised his left arm to save himself. Then Teja Singh gave a dang blow on the left hand. Harjinder Singh also fell on the ground. All the accused had caused injuries and then ran away from the spot with their weapons. The cause of grudge was that Bahadur Singh, brother of the complainant, was the member of Committee which had to repair of watercourse and Gurdev Singh had to pay fine to the Committee, last year, for not repairing the watercourse. The accused having made consultations and caused the injuries.
The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
All the accused were charged for an offence under Section 148 IPC. For causing injuries to Harnek Singh, accused Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh were substantively charged for offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas others were charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Jagdev Singh was charged substantively for an offence under Section 325 IPC, for causing grievous injury to Harnek Singh, whereas others were charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Gurdev Singh was substantively charged under Section 324 IPC, for causing injuries to Sukhdev Singh, whereas other accused were charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 6
For causing simple hurt to Amrik Singh, Balbir Singh was substantively charged under Section 323 IPC, whereas others were charged with aid of Section 149 IPC.
For causing injuries to Sukhdev Singh, Mohinder Singh and Teja Singh were substantively charged under Section 323 IPC, whereas others were charged with aid of Section 149 IPC.
Similarly, for causing simple injury to Harjinder Singh, Hardev Singh and Teja Singh were charged under Section 323 IPC, whereas others were charged with aid of Section 149 IPC.
The prosecution commenced its evidence and examined Dr. Raj Kumar Garg as PW.1, who examined Harnek Singh, aged 60 years, on 4.3.1995 at 11.30 A.M. He found seven injuries on his person. Out of the injuries suffered by Harnek Singh, injury No.1 was attributed to Gurdev Singh, injury No.2 was attributed to Mohinder Singh and injury No.3 to Sukhdev Singh. Injury No.7 was attributed to Jagdev Singh. This witness opined that injuries No.1 and 3 were dangerous to life collectively and injury No.7 was grievous. X-ray examination of Harnek Singh was also conducted. Chip fracture of frontal bone outer table was present and part of bone was missing. Injury No.6 was a fracture of the ring finger.
Amrik Singh suffered one simple injury, which is reproduced below:-
"Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over the left side of head temporal region 6 cm from the left eye brow and six cm from left pinna. Wound was bleeding on touch."Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 7
This injury was attributed to Balbir Singh.
Sukhdev Singh suffered three injuries, the same are also reproduced below:-
"1. Incised wound curved 6 cms in length x 2 cm x bone deep present over the right side of head. 9 cm from the right eye brow and 8 cm from the right pinna.
2. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over the top of head. Right side 8 cm from the right pinna and 13 cm from occiput. Wound was bleeding to touch.
3. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ¾ cm over the ventral surface of left hand, just above the little finger. Wound was skin deep and was bleeding to touch".
Injury No.1 was attributed to Gurdev Singh, injury No.2 to Mohinder Singh and Injury No.3 to Teja Singh. All the injuries were simple.
On the same day at 1.20 P.M., Harjinder Singh was also medicolegally examined and following ten injuries were found on his person:-
"1. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present over the back of head left side 9 cm from the left pinna and 12 cm from the occiput. Wound was bleeding and Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 8 x-ray was advised.
2. Lacerated wound 3½ cm x ½ cm x muscle deep present over the top of head left side 10 cm from the left pinna and 12 cm from the left eye brow. Wound was bleeding.
3. Abraded bruise 8 cm x 2½ cm over the back of right shoulder red in colour.
4. Bruise 19 cm x 3 cm over the back of chest right lower part horizontally present red in colour. X-ray was advised.
5. Bruise 9 cm x 2½ cm over the back of iliac region right side red in colour.
6. Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm over the back of right side of iliac region obliquely present red in colour.
7. Bruise 12 cm x 2 cm over the middle of back of lumber region red in colour.
8. Linear abrasion 10 cm in length over the lateral side of left upper arm just below the shoulder red in colour.
9. An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over the lateral side of left upper arm 12 cm above elbow red in colour.
10. Lacerated wound 1 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep over the medial side of the right hand and bleeding was present".Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 9
Injury No.1 was attributed to Hardev Singh and injury No.2 to Teja Singh. The author of the other injuries was not specified. All the injuries were declared simple.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has read the cross- examination of Dr. Raj Kumar Garg PW.1, where the doctor stated that Harnek Singh was a diabetic and was discharged from the hospital on 22.3.1995.
Counsel for the appellants has emphasized that injury No.1 suffered by Harnek Singh was only a chip fracture and brain was not directly effected, due to injuries No.1 and 3.
Amrik Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.2 and he reiterated what was stated in the FIR. The suggestions put to the witness were denied. This witness stated that incident of watercourse had taken place one/one and a half years prior to the occurrence. Due to that, no dispute had taken place. The accused, in the cross- examination, projected that watercourse was not the cause or grudge of the fight, rather the accused had suggested their own version to this witness which he had denied. The version suggested to the witness read as under:-
"It is wrong to suggest that Malkiat Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh accused had gone to answer the call of the nature in the fields at about 6 AM when you met her. It is further incorrect that she met me at 6 AM and I dragged her to wheat crop in order to commit rape. It is also incorrect that she raised Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 10 alarm and she freed herself and came back to the village weeping and crying. It is further incorrect that she narrated the occurrence to her husband Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh accused. It is further incorrect to suggest that both came out of house and that at that time they were armed with gandasa and in the meantime I came in front of house of Sukhdev Singh. It is also incorrect that both Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh accused protested me on my act. It is also incorrect that instead of feeling sorry, I started quarreling with them and on hearing my noise, my father Harnek Singh came there, and was apprised of the said matter. It is further incorrect that I and my father started abusing and quarreling Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh accused and it is also incorrect that under sudden grave provocation they caused injuries to us. It is also incorrect that Sukhdev Singh and Harjinder Singh injured came there and sustained injuries during the process of rescuing us".
Harjinder Singh, injured, PW.3, corroborated the testimony of Amrik Singh PW.2. However, in cross-examination, he stated that prior to this incident, there was no enmity between the parties.
Harnek Singh, injured, appeared as PW.4, and Sukhdev Singh as PW.5. They corroborated the testimony of PW.2 Amrik Singh.
PW.6 Narotam Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 11 accompanied Piara Singh, Sub Inspector and had participated in the investigation of the case.
PW.7 Piara Singh, Sub Inspector, had investigated the case and proved various facets of the investigation.
Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. The statements of accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same. Gurdev Singh gave a version, as was suggested to the witnesses. Still, at the cost of repetition, his version is reproduced below:-
"I am innocent. Malkiat Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh had gone to answer the call of nature at about 6 AM, when Amrik Singh met her and he dragged her in the wheat crop in order to commit rape. She raised alarm and got herself free and returned to village weeping and crying. She narrated the occurrence to her husband Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh. They both came out of their house armed with gandasas. In the meantime, Amrik Singh came in front of the house of Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh protested to him regarding his act, instead of feeling sorry, he started quarreling with them and on hearing the noise Harnek Singh, father of Amrik Singh, also came there and he was apprised of the matter. Amrik Singh and his father Harnek Singh started Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 12 abusing and quarreling with Sukhdev Singh and Harnek Singh and under sudden and grave provocation, Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh inflicted injuries to Amrik Singh and Harnek Singh. Sukhdev Singh and Harjinder Singh came there and received injuries during this process when they tried to intervene. Police was informed by Sukhdev Singh and Hardev Singh and the said occurrence was witnessed by Raj Singh and other respectables. I have been falsely involved under the presence of DSP after 3/4 days along with my co-accused".
Sukhdev Singh adopted the version given by Gurdev Singh, whereas other accused denied their presence.
In defence, Malkiat Kaur, wife of Sukhdev Singh, accused, was examined as DW.1. She supported the defence version.
Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has read the charge. He has stated that only one specific injury was attributed to Jagdev Singh for which charge under Section 325 IPC was framed against him. Counsel has also read the FIR, according to which, Jagdev Singh had given a push of dang blow on the mouth of Harnek Singh. Thus, he caused injury No.7 to Harnek Singh. A perusal of this injury reveal that lateral incisor (tooth) upper jaw was missing. There was a fresh bleeding of gum and socket was having clotted blood. Counsel has submitted that even if prosecution story is believed that Jagdev Singh had given a Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 13 push of dang, there should have been some external mark of injury on the face. The doctor found no abrasion, laceration, bruise or contusion. Thus, missing of tooth cannot relate to this injury. In para 16 of the judgment, the trial Court had extended benefit to Teja Singh and Mohinder Singh. The same reasoning can be applied to appellant Jagdev Singh. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt is granted to appellant Jagdev Singh and he is acquitted of the charges.
However, four injured persons have stated that injuries were caused to them by the accused. There are three injuries on the head of Harnek Singh. Amrik Singh had also suffered a head injury. Sukhdev Singh and Harjinder Singh had also suffered two head injuries each. The four persons have been injured. The defence version was not relayed to anybody, for the first time it was projected in the Court. Furthermore, there was no justification for the accused to cause injuries to Harnek Singh, who was aged 60 years. He was innocent person, who was returning from the fields after easing himself. Therefore, the argument that accused had acted due to grave and sudden provocation, is not acceptable. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Balbir Singh and Hardev Singh on various counts, for which they have been sentenced, is maintained. However, since number of accused has become less than five, Section 34 IPC will apply instead of Section 149 IPC.
In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. About 15 years are going to elapse. Therefore, sufferance of protracted trial can be considered as mitigating circumstance and some Criminal Appeal No. 804-SB of 1999 14 reduction in the sentence can be granted to the accused.
Accordingly, sentence of Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, for offence under Section 307 IPC is reduced from four years to three years rigorous imprisonment and sentence of Balbir Singh and Hardev Singh for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is reduced from four years to two years rigorous imprisonment.
Since, Jagdev Singh has been granted benefit of doubt, his conviction for offence under Section 325 IPC is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. However, conviction of the remaining appellants for offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC is maintained.
With the modifications in the sentence, present appeal is disposed of.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 9, 2010 "DK"