Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nachhatar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003
Date of Decision:24.10.2013
Nachhatar Singh and others
---Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
---Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
***
Present:- Mr.Ashit Malik and Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocates,
for the petitioners
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, AAG, Punjab
Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate
for the complainant
***
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present petition lays challenge to judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court, as detailed below, have been affirmed:-
Nachhatar Singh under Section Sentence awarded 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months 326/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
324/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months 323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -2- Gurmukh Singh under Section Sentence awarded 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
324/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months
Jasbir Singh
under Section Sentence awarded
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
326/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
324/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months
Ranbir Singh
under Section Sentence awarded
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
326/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months 323/149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months The facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that on 4.1.1995, Nahar Singh, one of the injured got recorded his statement that on 3.1.1995 at 11.30 A.M., he along with Jagrup Singh was present in his house, constructed in their fields. Hans Raj son of Nand Singh also came to their dera. Nahar Singh and Hans Raj were sitting out side their house but Jagrup Singh, his brother, was present inside the house. Nachhatar Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jasbir Singh, Bhola @ Ranbir Singh, sons of Labh Singh and Labh Singh came there on a tractor trolley and started digging Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -3- earth from their land. His brother Jagrup Singh stopped them from doing so. The accused caught hold Jagrup Singh and stated that he should not be spared. Jasbir Singh dealt a gandasi blow to Jagrup Singh which landed below his right thumb as he raised his right hand to ward off the attack. Another blow was given on the little finger of his right hand. Gurmukh Singh gave gandasa blow to Jagrup Singh on his head. Bhola @ Ranbir Singh gave gandasa blow which fell on the left upper arm of Jagrup Singh. Nachhatar Singh gave gandasa blows on the head and left hand of Jagrup Singh. The complainant intervened and the assailants caused injuries to him also. Nachhatar Singh gave gandasa blow on the right side of his head. Another gandasa blow was given by Gurmukh Singh on left side of his head. Gurmukh Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side on his right hand. Bhola @ Ranbir Singh gave one blow, from reverse side of gandasa, on his head. Labh Singh gave dang blows on his left thigh, left shoulder and right arm and he fell down on the ground. All the assailants attacked him while he was lying on the ground. Hans Raj raised raula 'mar ditta' 'mar ditta', which attracted various persons working in their fields to the spot. The accused fled away from the spot along with their weapons and tractor trolley. The motive for the crime is that the complainant party is in possession of land and the matter was got compromised by the panchayat but they did not want to give the land without demarcation.
On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were charge sheeted for the offence to which they did not plead guilty. After appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -4- consisting of statements of Nahar Singh, complainant-injured PW-1, Jagrup Singh, injured-victim PW-2, Dr. P.C.Gupta PW-3, ASI Gurcharan Singh PW-4 and having heard counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty of offence charged against them and they were accordingly sentenced as detailed hereinbefore. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal but were unsuccessful as the judgment passed by the trial Court was affirmed.
Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the present case is a case of version and cross version because Nachhatar Singh and others sustained injuries and they filed a criminal complainant against the complainant party as the police failed to initiate action against them. It is argued with vehemence that the prosecution failed to adduce satisfactory much less cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the complainant party was in possession of the land in question where the occurrence statedly took place. Counsel has carried me through the site plan Ex. PK, prepared by the Investigating Officer and argues that perusal thereof would show that the occurrence in question took place in the fields of accused Nachhatar Singh which substantiates the plea of the petitioners that the complainant party is aggressor and caused injuries to Nachhatar Singh and others and in all they caused injuries to five persons from the side of the accused.
Another plea raised by counsel is that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by Nachhatar Singh and others, proved on record during cross examination of Dr. P.C.Gupta PW-3, who conducted medico legal examination of Nachhatar Singh, Bhola @ Ranbir Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -5- Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jasbir Singh and their father Labh Singh. It is further argued that the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant party, in exercise of their right of private defence of person, therefore, the judgments passed by the Courts below holding the petitioners guilty of offence charged against them are liable to be set aside and the petitioners deserve to be acquitted of the charge.
Counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the private respondent, has supported the judgments impugned. It is argued that version of the petitioners that Nahar Singh, Jagrup Singh and others were aggressors and attacked Nachhatar Singh and others while armed with sharp edged weapons, is falsified and belied from the nature of injuries found on the person of Nachhatar Singh and others, in view of medico legal reports on record. It is further submitted that except Jasbir Singh son of Labh Singh, no other person from the accused side sustained injury with a sharp edged weapon. Two injuries on the person of Jasbir Singh in the nature of incised wounds are on the right index finger and right middle finger at DIP joint with their dimensions 0.5" x 1/5" and 0.5" x 1/5 x 1/5". It is further argued that the learned trial court and the Appellate Court have rightly held that the injuries found on the person of Nachhatar Singh and others are self suffered to create defence with an intent to escape criminal liability incurred by them for causing injuries to their adversaries due to land dispute between the parties.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before adverting to the submissions of the parties, it is pertinent to make a reference to the injuries found on the person of Jagrup Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -6- Singh and Nahar Singh from the complainant side, Nachhatar Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Bhola @ Ranbir Singh, Jasbir Singh and Labh Singh accused.
A relevant extract from their medico legal reports is quoted thus:-
Jagrup Singh
1. Incised wound 3"x 4/5" bone deep on the left arm on the front and outer side on its upper 1/3rd part. Direction was from inner to outer side and fresh bleeding was present.
2. There was incised wound 1"x1/5" on the left little finger on the proximal phalynx area and depth was skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. There was incised wound 1"x1/5" on the left palm on the distal part between second and third fingers Direction was from above to below and fresh bleeding was present
4. There was incised wound 1.5"x1/3rd into muscle deep on the back of right thumb on the Ist phalynx area. Direction was from inner to outer side. Fresh bleeding was present
5. There was transfers incised wound ½"x1/5"x1/10" on the right index finger at PIP joint. Fresh bleeding was present.
6. There was transfer incised wound 2"x1" into bone deep on the right side of scalp in parietal region. 2" away from centre and direction was from above downward. Fresh bleeding was present.
7. There was incised wound 3.5"x1" into bone deep on the fronto parietal region and 1.5" away from centre and going upto left parietal eminanc direction was from before backward and fresh bleeding was present.
Nahar Singh
1. Lacerated wound 2.5"x1 into bone deep on the scalp left side, 1" away from centre in the parietal area and in front of left Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -7- parietal aminance. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. There was incised wound 1"x1/3" into bone deep on the forehead right side 1.5" away from centre. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray for injuries No. 1 and 2 was advised.
3. There was small incised wound 1x1/5" on the forehead left side, 1.5" away from Centre. Fresh oozing of blood was present.
4. There was raddish abrasion 0.5"x0.5" on the left side of face 1.5" back to outer angle of left eye.
5. There was raddish bruise 4"x1" on the right arm in its middle on the out and back side with superadded raddish abrasion 1"x0.5"
6. Raddish bruise 2"x1" on the right forearm on the back side at its lower end.
7. Raddish bruise 1"x1" on the back of right hand in the second and third MCP bone area
8. Raddish bruise 3"x1" on the back and middle of left arm.
9. Raddish bruise 3"x" on the back and middle of right leg.
10.Raddish bruise 9"x1" on the lower half of left thigh on its out side.
11. Raddish bruise 3"x1" on the front and upper 1/3rd part of left thigh.
Nachhatar Singh
1. Raddish bruise 2" x 1" on the left forearm at its lower and on the out side.
2. Raddish abrasion 0.5" x 5" on the back of left index finger in the proximal phalynx area.
3. There was lacerated wound 1/5" x 1/5" on the back of left middle finger in the proximal Phalynx area. Fresh oozing of blood was present and X-ray was advised.Saini Paramjit Kaur
2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -8- Gurmukh Singh
1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1.5" x 1/5" on the back of right hand on its outer side. Fresh oozing of blood was present. X-ray was advised.
2. Two raddish small abrasions 1/5" x 1/5" and 1/5" x 1/5" on the back of right index finger above and below the MCP joint. Bhola Singh
1. There was lacerated would 0.5" x 0.5" on the scalp right side in the frontal area, 1" away from centre, 1.5" back to hair line. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. Raddish bruise 2" x 1" on the back and outer side of right forearm at its upper end.
3. Raddish abrasion 0.5" x 1/3" on right thumb at its I.P. joint and on its back. X-ray of thumb was advised.
Jasbir Singh
1. Five raddish abrasions 1.5" long on the back of right forearm in its middle.
2. Raddish bruise 1.5" x 1.5" on the front and middle of right forearm.
3. Small raddish incised wound 0.5" x 1/5" on the back of right index finger at DIP joint. Fresh oozing of blood was present.
4. Small raddish incised wound 0.5" x 1/5" x 1/5" on the back of right middle finger at DIP joint. Fresh bleeding was present. Labh Singh
1.Six raddish abrasions on the back and lower 1/3 of left forearm.
2. Small lacerated wound 1/3" x 1/5" on the scalp left side in the Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -9- parietal region, 3" above the ear. Fresh oozing of blood was present.
This brings the Court to the plea raised by the petitioners that the complainant party is the aggressor and the accused caused injuries to them in exercise of right of private defence of person.
Indisputably, the cross version set up by Nachhatar Singh and others in regard to sustaining injuries at the hands of the complainant party was not accepted by the trial Court and the revision filed against acquittal of Nahar Singh etc. has been dismissed. As per case of the prosecution, the accused started digging earth from the land of the complainant and on objection raised by Jagrup Singh, the accused who were armed with gandasas caused injuries to Jargup Singh and then to complainant Nahar Singh who intervened to save his brother Jagrup Singh from the deadly attack by the accused.
Nahar Singh, injured-complainant and Jagrup Singh, the injured-victim stepped into the witness box to support the prosecution version. Both of them are quite categoric and assertive in their testimony that the accused namely, Nachhatar Singh, Bhola @ Ranbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jasbir Singh, sons of Labh Singh and Labh Singh son of Nathu Singh came on a tractor trolley and started filling earth from their land. During cross examination, a suggestion was put to them that the accused were filling the trolley from their own land. There was no cross examination on the witnesses with regard to identification of the land or its khasra numbers etc. from where the accused statedly started filling earth. There is no such plea raised by the accused that the land from which the accused were digging and filling earth pertains to khasra No. 56/3 owned by the accused, Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -10- as has been sought to be raised in their statement under Section 313 of the Code. The accused failed to elicit any such fact on record that the land from which they started digging earth was in their possession and/or owned by them.
Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the site plan Ex. PK. As per the marginal notes, the complainant party and accused sustained injuries at point mark 'A'. Mark 'C' is the site being claimed by both the parties. Mark 'B' is the point from where Nachhatar Singh brought the trolley through his wheat field for lifting earth from point 'C' . During cross examination of Nahar Singh and Jagrup Singh, they were not confronted with site plan Ex. PK nor any issue was raised that the site at points Mark 'A' and 'B' is in possession of the accused party. The Investigating Officer has depicted a site below points Mark 'B' and 'A' captioned 'pit dug for latrine by Nahar Singh'. The mere fact that outside point Mark 'C', the Investigating Officer has shown 'wheat of Nachhatar Singh' is not sufficient to substantiate the plea of the accused that the site at points Mark 'A' Mark 'B' was also in possession of the accused or they were digging and lifting earth from their own land.
As has been noticed earlier, there is no evidence on record to hold that the occurrence in question took place on the land in possession of the accused party. The nature and number of injuries sustained by Jagrup Singh and Nahar Singh, Pws, Nachhatar Singh, Bhola @ Ranbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jasbir Singh, sons of Labh Singh and Labh Singh son of Natha Singh accused would make it manifest that Jagrup Singh received two incised wounds, bone deep on parietal region. Nahar Singh sustained Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -11- two incised wounds (one bone deep) on his fore head. On the other hand, the injuries sustained by the accused are lacerations, bruises and abrasions except two incised wounds of Jasbir Singh, on right index finger and right middle finger, respectively. It is difficult to believe, had the accused been attacked by the complainant party at the first instance while armed with sharp edged weapons (gandasas), the accused would have sustained aforesaid injuries only instead of serious injuries. The nature of injuries on the person of accused is sufficient to falsify and belie their version that the complainant party is an aggressor. It further demolishes their plea that the accused caused injuries to the complainant party in exercise of right of private defence of person.
Assuming though not accepting that the complainant party is the aggressor, another issue which invites deliberation and adjudication is, whether the accused can escape their liability in guise of right of private defence of person. The answer appears to be in the negative. As has been discussed earlier, the accused party sustained abrasions, lacerations and bruises etc. except two incised injuries on fingers of Jasbir Singh. The injuries sustained by the accused when examined in the light of injuries inflicted to Jagrup Singh and Nahar Singh, it is difficult to accept the plea of right of private defence of person, put forth by the accused. The number and nature of injuries sustained by Jagrup Singh and Nahar Singh safely lead to the conclusion that even if the accused caused these injuries to the complainant party in exercise of right of private defence of person, they certainly exceeded that right which disentitle them to benefit of their defence plea.Saini Paramjit Kaur
2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2533 of 2003 -12-
I would hasten to add that as per prosecution, the accused were armed with gandasas, wielded weapons and caused injuries. Jagrup Singh suffered seven injuries, all incised wounds. Nahar Singh sustained two incised wounds on the forehead and a lacerated wound bone deep on the scalp of left side. It is not the plea of the accused that they caused injuries to Jagrup Singh and Nahar Singh with equipments used for digging and lifting earth. It is common knowledge that Kasi (Kahi/spade) is used for digging and lifting earth but the accused have not taken a stance that they caused injuries with a spade. The circumstance that the accused came to the spot armed with gandasas falsify their story that they caused injuries to Jagrup Singh and Nahar Singh in exercise of their right of private defence or they were not aggressors. In this view of the matter, taken from any angle, I do not find any force in the contentions of the petitioners to differ with consistent findings of guilt of the petitioners for committing offence charged against them.
In the result, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the courts below is affirmed. Their bail orders are cancelled and surety bonds stand discharged. They be taken in custody to undergo the remaining sentence.
( Rekha Mittal ) Judge 24.10.2013 paramjit Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.01.08 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh