Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 16 July, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005
.....
Date of decision:16.7.2012
Manwinder Singh and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for appellants No.
1, 3 and 4.
Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant No.2.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
......
(2) Criminal Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005
.....
Darshan Singh
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 filed by appellants-Manwinder Singh, Nahar Singh, Labh Singh and Gulab Singh and Criminal Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 filed by appellant-
Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [2] Darshan Singh as they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby the respective appellants in the two appeals have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 148 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for causing the murder of Amrik Singh. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution version in brief is that FIR No.55 dated 30.3.2000 was registered on the statement (Ex.PW9/A) of Surjit Singh alias Guddu son of Mohinder Singh made before ASI Gurmail Singh. He stated that he is resident of Village Ubhyan and does agricultural work. They are four brothers. On 29.3.2000, he and his younger brother Amrik Singh had gone to Village Kohrian to see cultural fare. They became late on account of listening of songs. They both were going back to their Village Ubhyan on foot after seeing the fare via road. When they reached on the bridge of minor canal, their father Mohinder Singh met them and told that they have enmity and they should have come back in time. He and his father Mohinder Singh were going ahead and his brother Amrik Singh was coming Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [3] behind them. The complainant and his brother had taken liquor at Kohrian after seeing the fare. When they were at a distance of 7/8 killas from the bridge of minor canal towards Ubhyan in the area of Village Kohrian at about 6.30 p.m., a vehicle coming from behind stopped near his brother Amrik Singh, who was about 15/20 Karams behind them. He and his father turned behind and saw that the vehicle was of Manwinder Singh son of Jaswant Singh Jat of their village, who was driving the same. He had his licensed .12 bore double barrel gun. Darshan Singh son of Harjit Singh Jat of their village armed with `Khapra', Nahar Singh son of Ram Singh Jat resident of Kalwanoo armed with `Ghop', Labh Singh son of Prem Singh armed with `Khapra' and Gulab Singh brother of Labh Singh armed with `Kirpan' were in that vehicle. They came down from the vehicle and Manwinder Singh raised a `Lalkara' that on that day they should not be escaped, teach them a lesson for taking the land. In the meantime, Nahar Singh gave `Ghop' blow from the sharp edged side on the neck behind the left ear of Amrik Singh. His brother Amrik Singh raised a `Raula' `Marta- Marta' and he fell down on the road. Then Darshan Singh gave `Khapra' blow on the left eye of his brother Amrik Singh and Gulab Singh gave a `Kirpan' blow on the right ear of his brother and Labh Singh gave a `Khapra' blow on the forehead of his brother while Amrik Singh was lying on the road. They raised `Raula' `Na Maro, Na-Maro' but all these accused persons were continuously giving injuries on the person of his brother and told that they would also be seen. Due to fear, he and his father ran away towards the fields. After the incident, they had taken Amrik Singh to Civil Hospital, Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [4] Kohrian after arranging a vehicle for treatment where Doctor gave first aid to his brother and had referred him to Sangrur. They admitted Amrik Singh in Civil Hospital, Sangrur after bringing him in a vehicle, where he was under treatment. The grudge was that uncle of their father , namely, Bishan Singh had no child. Due to which, a dispute of his 24 Killas land was pending. Therefore, the accused had given injuries to his brother Amrik Singh with an intention to kill him.
On receiving a wireless QST from SHO, Dirba, regarding injured Amrik Singh son of Mohinder Singh, who was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sangrur, ASI Gurmail Singh along Constable Karnail Singh, Constable Ram Paul Singh after reaching in Kotwali, Sangrur, received medical report of Amrik Singh from MHC for initiating proceedings. They joined HC Nazar Singh in the Police party, who had come to the Court of JMIC, Sangrur for evidence. After reaching Civil Hospital, Sangrur, ASI Gurmail Singh along with his officials obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding recording of statement of injured Amrik Singh. The doctor declared Amrik Singh unfit to give statement and handed over MLR No.46/PK/2k of Amrik Singh to ASI Gurmail Singh. In the MLR, the doctor had mentioned total seven injuries inflicted to the injured, out of which injuries No.1, 2, 3 and 7 were stated to be inflicted with blunt weapon and injuries No.4, 5 and 6 were stated to be inflicted with sharp edged weapon. All the injuries were kept for X-ray observation, where, Surjit Singh alias Guddu, brother of injured Amrik Singh got recorded his above statement. ASI Gurmail made his endorsement (Ex.PW10/A) and he sent Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [5] the statement to the Police Station for registration of case. On the basis of above statement, FIR No.55 dated 30.3.2000 (Ex.PW10/B) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. ASI Gurmail Singh along with the complainant and his co-officials went to the spot for investigation and lifted blood stained earth by preparing a parcel which was taken in Police possession vide memo (Ex.PW9/B). He prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PW10/C). He again moved an application on 2.4.2000 (Ex.PW10/D) but Amrik Singh was declared unfit to make the statement by the Doctor vide his endorsement (Ex.PW10/E). An application (Ex.PW10/F) was again made on 4.4.2004, but Amrik Singh was again declared unfit to make statement vide Endorsement (Ex.PW10/G).
Accused Darshan Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.D- 695-DB of 2005) was arrested on 8.4.2004 vide memo of grounds of arrest (Ex.PW10/J) and a black bicycle make Hero was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PW10/K) made by him which was taken in possession vide memo (Ex.PW10/L). On receiving information regarding death of Amrik Singh on 24.4.2000, ASI Gurmail Singh, Police Post, Kohrian, District Sangrur, reached Civil Hospital, Sangrur and prepared inquest report (Ex.PW10/N) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. . He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the death of Amrik Singh, offence under Section 302 IPC was added.
On completion of investigation, challan was presented only against appellant-Darshan Singh and appellants Manwinder Singh, Nahar Singh, Labh Singh and Gulab Singh (appellants in Criminal Appeal No.D-
Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [6] 603 of 2005) were kept in column No.2 of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. After presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charge against accused-Darshan Singh framed charge under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, one of the eye witnesses, was examined, the learned Additional P.P. moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused-Manwinder Singh, Nahar Singh, Labh Singh and Gulab Singh to face trial under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The same was allowed vide order dated 2.1.2002 and charge was again framed against all the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case, examined PW-9 Surjit Singh, who is complainant and brother of the deceased Amrik Singh and is eye witness to the occurrence. He deposed as per the prosecution version. In the chief- examination, he stated that accused Nahar Singh gave a `Ghop' blow near the left ear of Amrik Singh who fell down. Darshan Singh gave a `Khapra' blow above his left eye and Gulab Singh gave a `Kirpan' blow on his right ear. Labh Singh gave a `Khapra' blow on the forehead of Amrik Singh.
Dr. Parmod Kumar (PW-1), SMO, Civil Hospital, Sangrur medico-legally examined Amrik Singh on 30.3.2000. He stated that Amrik Singh-injured was drowsy/unconscious and was not moving limbs on painful stimuli which he was brought by Surjit Singh and his father Mohinder Singh in Police van. Pulse was 86 per minute, respiratory rate was 20 per minute. Surgeon was informed and was shown the patient. He Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [7] advised X-ray and CT scan of head of the injured. On opening of bandages, following injuries were noted:-
"1. A stitched wound with three stitches 3 cm in length on front of left side of forehead. 1.5 cm above left eye brow. X-ray was advised.
2. A stitched wound 4 cm in length with 3 stitches on left eye brow and lateral part of forehead. X-ray was advised.
3. Reddish contusion with abrasion on lateral aspect of upper part of face, forehead and frontal area with clotted blood. Clotted blood was present in left ear and ear canal. Advised X-ray.
4. Cruciate shaped incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on left lateral aspect of left mastoid area with clotted and fresh blood. Wound was skin deep. X-ray was advised.
5. Abrasion with reddish contusion on front and lateral aspect of right cheek, right ear, mastoid area and upper part of right lateral surface of neck. There were two stitched wounds 1 cm in length in same area on right cheek and two stitched wounds near the angle of mandible 1 cm in length. There were clean cut edge skin deep incised wound on lower lateral part of right cheek in same area with clotted blood. X-ray was advised.
6. Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm on anterior part of wall of right ear and tragus of right ear with fresh and clotted blood in ear Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [8] canal of right ear.
7. Lacerated wound on lateral aspect of right mastoid area with clotted blood at the base of right ear size 1 cm x 3.4 cm."
According to Dr. Parmod Kumar, injuries were kept under observation for X-ray and CT scan reports and observation of general condition of injured. Injuries No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were the result of blunt weapon whereas injuries No.4, 5 and 6 could be result of sharp edged weapon. He proved the carbon copy of medico-legal report (EX.PA). He sent intimation (Ex.PB) to SHO, Police Station, Sangrur. He declared the patient unfit to make the statement. He further stated that there was very little likelihood of aforesaid injuries having been caused with a `Khapra' or a sword. When cross-examined, he stated that there was a possibility of these wounds having been caused by fall over a pointed broken glass or hit by a broken piece of glass. Injuries were more likely to be caused with some light sharp edged weapon and not with a heavy sharp edged weapon as stated by him earlier. He referred Amrik Singh to PGI, Chandigarh on 2.4.2000 as the patient was serious and he was referred back to Sangrur after investigation.
PW-2 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amrik Singh on 24.4.2004, observed as under:-
"1. Healed scar about 2.5 cm in length on the left fore head just above the eye brow.
Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [9]
2. Healed scar about 3.5 cm in length on the left eye brow. On dissection there was haematoma pressing on the brain matter.
3. Healed scar 1 cm x 0.75 cm on the right ear and Tragus.
4. Healed scar 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the right mastoid area.
5. Healed scar 1 cm x 0.75 cm on the left mastoid area. Tracheotomy tube removed from the tracheotomy wound on the front of neck."
He opined that the death was occurred due to shock and respiratory failure as a result of head injury and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In cross- examination, he stated that Haematoma can also be there, if one falls against hard surface, violently. The chest infection could be there, because of unconsciousness of the patient for a long time or may be negligence on the part of the patient's attendant or little negligence on the part of the medical treatment. He further stated that injuries No.1 and 2 could be caused by violent fall on hard-surface. The chest infection could be caused in this case, if proper care of the Tracheotomy tube or wound was not taken. The lung was congested due to patch of pneumonia. He has given the probable time that elapsed between injury and death as within 25 days and between death and post-mortem as within 12 hours.
PW-3 MHC Avtar Singh filed his affidavit (Ex.PW-3/A) and deposed regarding depositing a parcel containing blood stained earth with him and his handing over the charge to PW-8 HC Bikramjit Singh. PW-8 Bikramjit Singh filed his affidavit (Ex.PW8/A) deposing therein that he sent Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [10] the parcel containing blood stained earth to the office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh through Constable Kuldeep Singh. PW-4 Kuldeep Singh filed his affidavit (Ex.PW4/A) deposing therein that he took the parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner. PW-5 Karamjit Singh Patwari, Halqa Chhajli deposed that on 4.6.2000, he prepared the scaled map (Ex.PW5/A), with its correct marginal notes, at the spot. PW-6 Ashok Kumar, Pharmacist, Kohrian mainly deposed regarding first aid given to the patient. PW-7 Dr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh mainly deposed regarding admitting Amrik Singh in the emergency ward of PGI on 2.4.2000 and discharge card (Ex.PW7/A). PW-8 HC Bikramjit Singh mainly deposed regarding tendering his affidavit (Ex.PW8/A) in evidence. PW-9 Surjit Singh is the complainant and eye witness to the occurrence and he deposed as per prosecution version. PW- 10 ASI Gurmail Singh, In-charge, Police Post Kohrian is the Investigating Officer who deposed mainly regarding the investigation of the case. PW-11 Mohinder Singh is father of the deceased and eye witness to the occurrence. He also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-12 Dr. Ravinder Kler, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sangrur mainly deposed regarding declaring Amrik Singh unfit to make statement on 22.4.2000. He also gave information to SHO, Sangrur regarding the death of patient on 24.4.2000.
At the close of the prosecution evidence accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent and had stated that they have been Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [11] implicated falsely in this case. No such occurrence took place. In defence accused examined DW-1 ASI Mukhtiar Singh, Police Station, Dakha, who mainly deposed that on 26.7.2001, he recorded the statement of Paramjit Kaur widow of Amrik Singh, who received injuries on her person. A compromise was effected between the parties on 7.8.2001 and an entry was made in the Roznamcha vide Rapat No.15 dated 7.8.2001 which was thumb marked/signed by Paramjit Kaur, Gurdial Kaur, Gurjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and others. In cross-examination, he stated that he had no personal knowledge of the said incident of Paramjit Kaur and no challan of that case was presented.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences as mentioned above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that first of all there is a delay in recording the FIR as the occurrence took place as per prosecution at 6.30 p.m. in the area of Village Kohrian. The statement of Surjit Singh had been recorded on the next day at about 2.00 p.m. and then the FIR was registered. A special report was received by the Magistrate at 10.05 a.m. on the next day i.e. 31.3.2000. Therefore, they argued that this delay has been utilized in concocting a false story and accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The presence of the PWs on the spot is also doubtful. The learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the PWs are related and interested witnesses, therefore, their Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [12] testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there was motive for false implication of the accused in the present case. They also argued that adverse inference is to be drawn as independent witnesses were not examined. They further argued that Manwinder Singh-accused, who was stated to be armed with gun did not fire. Only `Lalkara' is attributed to him and a reasonable doubt exists whether he was actually present on the spot or not. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the injury regarding `Ghop' blow could not have been given as there is no punctured wound in the present case, therefore, there is also a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of Nahar Singh on the spot. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that as per medical evidence pieces of glass were found stained with blood on the earth which itself shows that the injuries were caused with the glass pieces and the doctor has also not ruled out the possibility of causing injuries with glass pieces. Therefore, he argued that a reasonable doubt exists in the present case. There is also discrepancy regarding the presence of Police in the van etc. on the spot. Therefore, he argued that a reasonable doubt exists in the present case and the appellants should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State argued that the case of the prosecution is duly proved by the eye witnesses. Their evidence is supported by medical evidence. There are no material contradictions in the statements of the PWs nor the PWs have made material improvements in the present case. There is nothing on the record to make the presence of the PWs on the spot doubtful.
Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [13] The PWs are truthful and reliable witnesses. The mere ground that they are related and interested, their testimony cannot be discarded. It is not necessary to examine all the witnesses in the present case. He further argued that no big sized glass pieces were taken from the spot, therefore, there is no evidence that the injuries were caused with the glass pieces. She argued that even if there is any discrepancy in the medical evidence and the eye witnesses account, the eye witnesses account is to prevail. She argued that as regards delay, initially, it was a case of injuries only and the injured was unfit to make the statement regarding which the evidence has already been produced on the record. She also argued that the injured was immediately taken to Civil Hospital and the wounds were stitched immediately. As the injured was unfit to make statement, therefore, the delay has already been explained. Otherwise also, she argued that the delay itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, she argued that the appeals of the appellants have no merit.
As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the occurrence took place on 29.3.2000 in the evening time at about 6.30 p.m. in the area of Village Kohrian. As per evidence on record, Amrik Singh-injured was unconscious. Even an application was filed and the opinion of the doctor was taken but the injured was unfit to make the statement. Secondly, earlier the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Kohrian, where the first aid was given and then he was referred to Civil Hospital, Sangrur and he was got admitted there. As the injured was unfit to make the statement, therefore, the delay has occurred in Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [14] the present case. PW-1 Dr. Parmod Kumar also deposed that on 30.3.2000 at 2.00 a.m. he examined Amrik Singh and at that time as per his statement, the patient was drowsy/unconscious. He also deposed that Amrik Singh was brought by Surjit Singh at 11.50 p.m. on 29.3.2000 in a serious condition and stitched bandage. The doctor stated that the injured was brought in the Police van which statement is denied by the PWs. Then the doctor also stated that an application was filed on 30.3.2000 (Ex.PC) and he gave his opinion on the same day at 12.10 p.m. that the patient Amrik Singh was not fit to make the statement. He also stated that the injured Amrik was referred to Chandigarh due to his serious condition. All this evidence goes to show that Amrik Singh-injured was not fit to give statement when the doctor declared him unfit even on the next day. Then the statement of the complainant was recorded at 2.00 p.m. in the hospital. Otherwise also, delay itself cannot be held fatal to prosecution case and on the ground of delay the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown away. The only precaution to be taken in the case of delay is that the Court is to scrutinize the evidence of the PWs more cautiously and carefully and duty is imposed upon the Court to separate the grain from the chaff.
As regards the next argument, we find that there is no cogent evidence on record to doubt the presence of the PWs on the spot. The PWs have deposed on oath in the Court consistently as per the prosecution version. PW-9 Surjit Singh-complainant and eye witness has consistently deposed as per prosecution version. He has also given the motive for causing the injuries as his grand-father's brother, namely, Bishan Singh had Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [15] got no issue and he gave his land to his father Mohinder Singh. The accused-appellants are nephews of Nand Kaur wife of Bishan Singh and the appellants had filed suit against the complainant side which was decided in their favour by the Supreme Court. Manwinder Singh started cultivating the said land by force 10-12 years prior to the occurrence. Due to the decision in their favour, Manwinder Singh was nursing a grudge against them. Similar is the statement of PW-11 Mohinder Singh-father of the deceased. There is no material contradiction or improvement in his statement. Nothing came out from the cross-examination from which it could be inferred that the witnesses were not present on the spot. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellants has no merit.
As regards the next contention that the witnesses are related and interested witnesses, it is settled law now that the testimony of PWs who are related and interested one cannot be discarded only on this ground. The only precaution to be taken by the Court is to scrutinize their statements cautiously and carefully. We have gone through the cross-examination of these PWs. The PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. The mere fact that the injured was brought to Civil Hospital in a Police van alone itself is insufficient to disbelieve their statement. As regards the fact that independent witnesses were present and they were not examined by the prosecution in the present case is no ground to draw an adverse inference against the witnesses, who have seen the occurrence and have already deposed consistently regarding the prosecution case.
As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [16] appellants that medical evidence is not supporting ocular version, it is clear that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As deposed by PW-1 Dr. Parmod Kumar, none of the injuries was punctured injury; regarding incised wound he stated that none of the injuries was stab wound. There was very less likelihood of aforesaid injuries having been caused with a `Khapra' or a sword. The doctor has stated in his cross-examination that there is a possibility of these wounds having been caused by fall over a pointed broken glass or hit by a broken piece of glass. From this cross-examination, first of all it cannot be held that these injuries were given by the pieces of broken glass. No such big piece of broken glass much less stained with blood had been found on the spot. Therefore, the doctor has only given the opinion that possibility cannot be ruled out. It is not proved that the injuries were given with the broken pieces of glass. The mere fact that in the blood stained earth small pieces of glass were found does not create any doubt. The occurrence took place on the road, therefore, there may be very small pieces of glass on the road from the broken glass of some vehicle etc. Secondly, it is also a settled law that when there is any inconsistency between the ocular version and medical version, the ocular version will prevail. The PWs have consistently deposed that these injuries were given by `Ghop', `Khapra' and `Kirpan' blows. Therefore, the version of the eye witnesses will prevail. The injuries are incised wounds caused with sharp edged weapon and the doctor's in his cross-examination stated that he did not re-open the stitched wound to examine them also shows that his observations may not be having so much Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [17] value as he has not opened the stitched wound. The prosecution case also cannot be held doubtful only on the ground that the patient was brought in the Police van. The doctor in cross-examination has stated that if a patient is brought to Hospital by a Policeman without proper papers even then a `Ruqa' is sent to Police station. But if a patient is brought to hospital by Police along with proper papers for his medico-legal examination, `Ruqa' is not sent to the Police Station. He also stated in cross-examination that in `Ruqa' there is no specific mention that Police party did not produce before him proper papers for the medico-legal examination. The death as per opinion of PW-2, Suresh Kumar Singla, who conducted the post-mortem examination was due to shock and respiratory failure due to head injury. Superadded with chest infection, which was ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. From this opinion, it cannot be held that the death was caused with some medical negligence or with chest infection etc. Rather, the doctor has given the opinion that it was due to the head injury. Thus, doctor also deposed regarding the fact that the infection could be there because of unconsciousness of the patient for a long time or due to negligence on the part of the patient's attendants or little negligence on the part of medical people. Therefore, from the above discussion, we find that the prosecution case cannot be held as doubtful on this ground.
As regards the discrepancy that the witnesses have denied that the patient was brought in Police van etc. as deposed by the doctor does not go to the root of the case.
Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [18] As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was a motive for false implication along with delay in recording the FIR, we find that the motive is double edged weapon. Admittedly, there was a dispute regarding the land with Manwinder Singh. Manwinder Singh as per prosecution version was armed with gun but he did not fire from his gun. He has not caused any injury. He has not taken active participation in the commission of the offence and only `Lalkara' is attributed to him. Keeping in view the delay in the registration of the case and in view of the fact that there was enmity with Manwinder Singh of the complainant party and the fact that he had not caused any injuries, we find that as regarding him, his presence on the spot looks doubtful and a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case.
As regard the other accused Nahar Singh, Labh Singh, Gulab and Darshan Singh, they were armed with weapons and they had caused injuries to the injured and had taken active participation in the commission of the crime.
Therefore, from the above, we allow Criminal Appeal No.D- 603-DB of 2005 qua appellant No.1-Manwinder Singh and acquit him of the charges framed against him. As a result of acquittal of appellant No.1- Manwinder Singh, all the accused in the two appeals are acquitted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is modified to under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, they are sentenced to imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC instead of under Section 302 read with Section 149 Cr. Appeal No.D-603-DB of 2005 & Cr. Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 [19] IPC. However, this appeal qua appellant-2 Nahar Singh and appellant No.4 Gulab Singh is dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment of appellants No.2 and 4 i.e. Nahar Singh and Gulab Singh respectively was suspended by this Court vide orders dated 4.3.2011 and 7.4.2011 respectively and they were released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. As they are on bail, their bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender themselves before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against them in accordance with law.
Since appellant No.3-Labh Singh in Criminal Appeal No.D- 603-DB of 2005 has died on 3.12.2010, as such appeal qua him is abated.
With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal No.D-603- DB of 2005 stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No.D-695-DB of 2005 filed by Darshan Singh is dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment of appellant-Darshan Singh was suspended by this Court vide order dated 15.2.2011 and he was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. As he is on bail, his bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
July 16, 2012.
*hsp*