Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000
Decided on 22.04.2009.
Mohinder Singh and others
Appellants.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent.
JORA SINGH, J Through the instant appeal, Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Banta Singh, Jagtar Singh and Jaga Singh sons of Mohinder Singh and Paramjit Singh son of Gurmit Singh residents of Jhanda Lobana, District Gurdaspur, have impugned the judgment/order dated 31.10.2000 in Sessions Case No. 47 RBT of 1995 , First Information Report No. 79 dated 9.12.1994 registered under Sections 302, 323, 324, Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 2 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kahnuwan, whereby all the accused were convicted as under:-
i) All the accused were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
ii) Mohinder Singh accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code whereas accused Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
iii) Accused Jagtar Singh was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jaga Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
iv) Accused Jaga Singh was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were convicted under Section 324 read Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 3 with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
v) Accused Paramjit Singh was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh and Gurmit Singh were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
and were sentenced as under:-
(i) All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code;
(ii) Accused Mohinder Singh was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code;
Accused Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were sentenced to undergo Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 4 imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) Accused Jagtar Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jaga Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Accused Jaga Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurmit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 5 imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; and
(v) Accused Paramjit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code whereas accused Mohinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh and Gurmit Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run, concurrently.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Smt Surjit Kaur, complainant is resident of village Jhanda Lobana. She had two sons. Elder one Surinder Singh was in the army. He was on leave. Complainant party had joint tube well with Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Banta Singh. Complainant party as well as the accused party used to irrigate their fields from the joint tube well Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 6 turn by turn. On 8.12.1994, turn of water was of Mohinder Singh etc. On 9.12.1994 at about 7 A.M., Tarsem Singh with his son Surinder Singh had gone to irrigate his fields and came back after some time. Complainant enquired as to why they came back, then they replied that they had some altercation with Mohinder Singh and others qua the turn of water and are to report the matter to the Panchayat. In the meantime at about 7.45 A.M., Mohinder Singh armed with kirpan; Gurmit Singh armed with gandasi, Jagtar Singh and Jaga Singh armed with dattar and Paramjit Singh armed with dang came in front of the house of the complainant party and started abusing. Surinder Singh came out of the house and requested the accused not to abuse, then Gurmit Singh raised a lalkara to catch hold of Surinder Singh and teach him a lesson for demanding the turn of water. Mohinder Singh gave kirpan blow on the head of Surinder Singh. On receipt of blow, Surinder Singh fell down on the ground. Smt. Surjit Kaur came to rescue her son Surinder Singh, then Jagtar Singh gave dattar blow on the left wrist joint of the complainant. Tarsem Singh raised raula and on hearing raula, Ravel Singh and Jagir Singh came forward to Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 7 intervene, then Jaga Singh gave dattar blow to Ravel Singh. Gurmit Singh gave a gandasi blow on the back of Jagir Singh. Paramjit had given blows to Ravel Singh and Jagir Singh. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Surjit Kaur and Surinder Singh were shifted to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. Occurrence was witnessed by Mula Singh.
On receipt of information regarding admission of injured, Police party headed by Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh, had gone to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. After receiving four medico legal reports of the injured. When Surjit Kaur was declared fit to make statement by the Doctor, her statement was recorded. She had thumb marked the same in token of its correctness.
After making endorsement at 3.30 P.M., statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal First Information was recorded at 4/5 P.M. Special report was sent to Ilaqa Magistrate and the same was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 9.12.1994 at 11 P.M. Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh along with Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 8 the police party had gone to the spot. After investigation, blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and the same was made into a sealed parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression "LS". Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide recovery memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. While returning to the Police Station, Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh when present near Adda Bhaini Mian Khan, then received intimation regarding death of Surinder Singh. He immediately with the police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where Assistant Sub Inspector Ajay Pal Singh with the police party came.
Assistant Sub Inspector Ajay Pal Singh had prepared inquest report Ex.PE.After recording the statement of Tarsem Singh, offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Dead body was handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination.
On 12.1.1995, Assistant Sub Inspector Ajay Pal Singh with the police party was present near bus stop, Bhaini Mian Khan, where Ajit Singh had produced Mohinder Singh, Paramjit Singh and Jagtar Singh. As Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 9 per disclosure statement suffered by Mohinder Singh, kirpan was recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the kirpan Ex.P-1 was prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo attested by the witnesses. In pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Jagtar Singh, dattar Ex.P-2 was recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the dattar was prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the MHC.
On 22.1.1995, Mohinder Slingh had produced Jaga Singh but no weapon was recovered from him.
On 22.12.1994, information was received from the Commanding Officer because Gurmit Singh was in the army. After that Gurmit Singh was arrested.
After completion of investigation, challan was presented.
Vide order dated 25.4.1995 Mr. S.L.Mittal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, committed the case to the Court of Session, Gurdaspur, for trial.
After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 10 and defence counsel for the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur , found that a prima facie case under Sections 148 IPC, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian penal Code was made out and the accused were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.
PW-1 Surjit Kaur and PW-2 Ravel Singh injured eye witnesses have supported the prosecution story by saying that accused had caused injuries to them.
PW-3 Head Constable Manjit Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex.PB.
PW-4 Dr.Sindhu Raj on 10.12.1994 had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Surinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
"A large vertically placed linear incised wound was found on the right side of head extending from the lobule of the right ear to the head, measuring 14 cm x Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 11 1 cm measuring 1 cm at its maximum width. The wound was bone deep and had cut. Both temporal and zygomatic bones. The underneath structures brain meninges and brain were also cut. "
Cause of death as per opinion of the doctor was due to vital organ i.e. brain. The injury was anti mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was 12-24 hours and between death and postmortem was less than 24 hours.
PW-5 Constable Ram Chand had tendered his affidavit Ex.PF.
PW6 Constable Kuldip Singh had also tendered his affidavit Ex.PC.
PW-7 Dr. Ashok Mahajan stated that on 9.12.1994 at 10.15 A.M. Surinder Singh was brought to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. Condition of the patient was serious. After first aid, patient was referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. While going to Amritsar, Surinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries on the way, dead body was brought to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur at 6.20 P.M. PW-8 Dr. Rana Verma stated that on Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 12 9.12.1994 at 11 A.M., he had medico legally examined Surinder Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 14 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the scalp on the frontal region and extending on to face uptil the lobule of right ear.
Underlying bone was cut. Bleeding was profuse. Patient was unconscious, irritable. His pulse was 96 per minute. Blood pressure was 90/? Pupils on right side was dilated.
On the same day at 11.10 A.M., he had medico legally examined Jagir Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right side of scalp near the junction of hair line to the forehead. X ray was advised.
2. Reddish contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the back on right side in the scapular region.Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 13
On the same day at 11.20 A.M., he had medico legally examined Surjit Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:-
1. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the dorsum of left hand near the left wrist joint. Clotted blood was present. X-ray was advised. Patient was conscious. Her pulse was 78 p.m. On the same day, at 11.30 A.M. he had also examined Ravel Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. A V shape incised wound on the dorsum of right hand with each limb measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm with skin flap hanging. Clotted blood was present. X-ray was advised.
2. A diffused swelling 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the back of right side in its upper part.
Injury on the person of Jagir Singh and Injury No.1 on the person of Ravel Singh were kept under observation but all the injuries as per X-ray report were Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 14 declared simple in nature.
PW-9 Hans Raj employee of Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur stated that on 9.12.1994 Dr. Verma had handed over MLRs to him and those MLRs were handed over to MHC of Police Station City Gurdaspur.
PW-10 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PR.
PW-11 Constable Satinderjit Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PW11/A. PW-12 Assistant Sub Inspector Ajay Pal Singh had partly investigated the case in hand.
PW-13 Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh had initially investigated the case in hand.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against them. Accused denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the appellants-accused Paramjit Singh, Jaga Singh, Jagtar Singh was that they were not present at the time of occurrence and were falsely implicated.
Defence version of appellants-accused Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh was that 9.12.1994 in Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 15 the early hours of the morning, Jagtar Singh alone had gone to the fields to irrigate, because a day earlier, there was no electricity in the village. At about 7 A.M, they had gone with his tea. When they were passing in front of the house of the deceased which falls on the way, Surinder Singh deceased challenged them as to why, they are irrigating the fields. Their explanation did not satisfy him and started quarrelling with them and also brought a dattar from his house and gave some injuries to Gurmit Singh from its reverse side. When Mohinder came forward to rescue then Surinder Singh gave him injuries with dattar. When Surinder Singh again tried to give blow to Mohinder then Gurmit Singh gave him a kahi blow in self defence. Ravel Singh and Jagir Singh were not present at the spot. Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh and Paramjit Singh were not present there.
In defence, Banta Singh (DW-1) appeared and stated that on the day of occurrence, he was near the house of Sarpanch Ajit Singh, then he sighted Mohinder Singh, Gurmit Singh and Surinder Singh deceased. They had a dispute over the turn of water. Surinder Singh was saying that on that day, he had a turn of water but Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were saying that one Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 16 day earlier, there was no light. So, they are to irrigate the land. Surinder Singh gave two dattar blows from its reverse side to Gurmit Singh. When Mohinder Singh intervened, then Surinder Singh gave two dattar blows to Mohinder Singh. Gurmit Singh gave kassi blow on the person of Surinder Singh to save Mohinder Singh.
DW-2 Head Constable Sukhdev Singh brought record and proved the copy of DDR(Ex.DC).
DW-3 Hav Prem Chand Parshad had brought the file regarding the benefit given to Manjit Kaur widow of Surinder Singh.
DW-4 Dr. Baldev Singh had seen the copies of MLRs of Gurmit Singh and Mohinder Singh and stated that he had not conducted the Medico legal examination of Gurmit Singh and Mohinder Singh.
DW-5 Dr. Bhupinder Singh, Medical Officer, Tanda Urmur stated that on 9.12.1994 at 4.15 P.M., he had medico legally examined Gurmit Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1.Reddish swelling 5 x 5 cm in size was present over the dorsum of the left hand. Movement of carpophanlageal joint of middle, ring and little finger was painful and restricted Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 17
2.Reddish contusion 5 x 1 cm in size was present on the outer side of left forearm in lower 1/3rd. It was 5 cm above the wrist joint.
Vertically placed.
3. Reddish contusion 5 x 1 cm in size was present on the outer side of left upper arm in lower 1/3rd region. It was horizontally placed.
4. Skin deep lacerated wound 4 x 0.5 cm in size was present on the left shoulder joint. It was 6 cm from the outer and of left clavicle. Clotted blood was present over the wound on cleaning fresh bleeding was present.
5. Reddish swelling 3 x 3 cm was present on left side of face between outer and of left eye and left ear.
6. Reddish contusion 2 x 2 cm on the inner side of lower lip. More so on the left side.
On the same day, he had medico legally examined Mohinder Singh and found the following injurties on his person:-
1.Bluish colouration of left finger nail (index Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 18 finger ) clotted blood present. On cleaning the wound fresh bleeding present.
2. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm in size present over the front of right shine bone. It was horizontally placed 8 cm below the right knee joint. Fresh bleeding was present.
We have heard Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann,learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully and thoroughly with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellants-accused argued that as per prosecution story, occurrence was at 7.45 A.M. in front of the house of the deceased. On receipt of QST message, Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh had gone to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspaur. Fourt MLRs were collected. As per injuries noted by the doctors story was concocted. Statement of Surjit Kaur was recorded at about 3.30 P.M. Formal First Information Report was recorded at about 4/5 P.M., whereas special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 11 P.M. when distance of Police Station was only five miles from the residence of the Ilaqa Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 19 Magistrate. All injuries on the person of Surjit Kaur, Ravel Singh and Jagir Singh were found to be simple in nature. Only one injury was noted on the person of Surinder Singh alleged to be caused by kirpan, whereas Dr. Sindu Raj, who had conducted post mortem examination stated that injury noted on the person of Surinder Singh cannot be with a kirpan. First Information Report is medical oriented. Gurmit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh and Paramjit Singh were armed with deadly weapons but they did not cause injuries to the deceased. In case, they had the intention to murder, then they could easily cause injuries to the deceased. Blow was not repeated by Mohinder Singh. Only two weapons were recovered i.e. kirpan (Ex.P1) in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Mohinder Singh and a dattar (Ex.P-2) from Jagtar Singh. Appellants-accused had no motive to commit the crime. Parties had common tube-well and turn by turn, land was being irrigated. One day earlier to the occurrence, turn of water was of the appellants-accused, but there was no electric light on the day of occurrence. Turn was of the complainant party. As per story, if appellants- accused were restraining the deceased from using the Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 20 tube-well to irrigate the land, then complainant party had the motive to commit the crime. Appellants-accused had no motive because their turn was on 8.12.1994. Occurrence was in front of the house of the deceased. Appellants-accused had no common object to murder the deceased. At the most, appellants-accused had the intention to cause injuries , that is why, blow was not repeated. Jagir Singh one of the injured failed to turn up to support the prosecution story. Gurmit singh was armed with a gandashi but the same was not recovered. He had raised lalkara but Ravel Singh did not state a word that lalkara was raised by Gurmit Singh. Gurmit Singh was implicated being in the army. Jaga Singh was armed with a dattar, but no injury to the deceased. As per story, he had given injury on the thumb of Ravel Singh, but the injury was found to be simple in nature. Paramjit Singh was armed with a dang but injury alleged to be caused on the person of Ravel Singh was found to be simple in nature. Second injury attributed to Paramjit Singh was on the person of Jagir Singh but Jagir Singh failed to appear in Court. Appellant-accused Jagtar Singh armed with a dattar gave blow on the left wrist of Surjit Kaur, but injury was found to be simple Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 21 in nature. Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh were juvenile at the time of occurrence. Date of birth of Jagtar Singh is 7.10.1978 and of Paramjit Singh is 28.2.1977. As per custody certificates on the file, they have already undergone actual sentence of more than three years. Being juvenile maximum punishment can be three years. While facing trial, there was no request that Paramjit Singh and Jagtar Singh are entitled to the benefit of juvenility because at that time, their age was more than 16 years. After amendment, age of juvenile was increased from 16 to 18 years. As per Section 20 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Paramjit Singh and Jagtar Singh were entitled to the benefit of Juvenility. If the Court is of the opinion that crime was committed, then Paramjit Singh and Jagtar Singh being Juvenile are to be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing on the question of sentence. In fact, Jagtar Singh had gone to his fields to irrigate land, Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh followed him with tea. They were in front of the house of the complainant party, then sighted Surinder Singh. Surinder Singh was armed with a dattar and he gave two blows to Gurmit Singh and two blows to Mohinder Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 22 Singh. To save Mohinder Singh, Gurmit Singh armed with kassi gave single blow to Surinder Singh. Injury was caused in self defence Two injuries were noted on the person of Mohinder Singh and six injuries on the person of Gurmit Singh as per Dr.Bhupinder Singh but injuries on the person of Gurmit Singth and Mohidner Singh were not explained. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused requested to accept the appeal.
Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, argued that occurrence is an admitted fact. One deceased and three injured from the side of the complainant party. Injuries on the person of Surjit Kaur, Ravel Singh and Jagir Singh cannot be self suffered or self inflicted. No allegation of the appellants-accused that Mohinder Singh was also armed and he gave blow to the injured. As per defence version, only one blow was given by Gurmit Singh. Occurrence was at 7.45 A.m. in the street outside the house of the complainant party. Injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, whereas Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh were medico legally examined by Dr.Bhupinder Singh,Medical Officer,Tanda Urmur at 4.15 P.M. & 6.30 P.M. whereas the report was lodged at 3.30 P.M. Injuries on the person Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 23 of Mohinder Singh and Gurmit Singh can be self suffered or self inflicted. Injuries were found to be simple in nature. So, after the registration of criminal case it was very easy to self suffer and self inflict injuries to create defence. Appellants-accused had the motive because they were insisting to irrigate land and were not allowing the complainant party to irrigate land because there was no light on 8.12.1994.
First submission of learned counsel for the appellants-accused is that First Information Report is medical oriented because occurrence was at 7.45 A.M. Before recording statement of Surjit Kaur, Investigating Officer had collected MLRs of all the injured. Entire family was implicated according the the MLRs after the injuries were distributed.
We have gone through the evidence on the file but do not agree with the submission of learned defence counsel. Occurrence was at 7.45 A.M. in front of the house of the complainant party. Immediately, after the occurrence, injured were shifted to hospital. Condition of Surinder Singh was very serious. After first aid, Surinder Singh was referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. When he was being shifted to Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 24 Amritsar, then on the way, Surinder Singh had succumbed to his injuries. Dead body was brought back to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. Surinder Singh was medico legally examined at 11 A.M., Jagir Kaur was medico legally examined at 11.10 A.M. Surjit Kaur was medico legally examined at 11.20 A.M., whereas Ravel Singh was medico legally examined at 11.30 A.M. After arrival of the injured, intimation was sent to the concerned police station. Before arrival of Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, all the injured had been medico legally examined. In case, MLRs of the injured were handed over to Head Constable Lakhwinder Singh, then nothing to opine that the statement of Surjit Kaur was medical oriented. After admission of the injured, first priority of the doctor was to provide medical aid. Injured are to be medico legally examined. Doctor is not required to wait that after recording the statement of the injured, they are to be medico legally examined. Occurrence is an admitted fact. Only dispute is whether the occurrence had taken place as per prosecution story or as per defence version.
Next submission of learned defence counsel for Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 25 the appellants-accused is that there was no motive to commit the crime, because on 8.12.1994, turn of water was of the appellants-accused but on that day, there was no light. On 9.12.1994, turn of water was of the complainant party. Complainant party had gone to irrigate the land, then appellant-accused Jagtar Singh requested that due to non-availability of light on 8.12.1984, they failed to irrigate their land. Complainant party insisted to irrigate their land. When appellant- accused Jagtar Singh was requesting to irrigate his land, then complainant party had the motive to implicate the accused, particularly when injuries on the person of all the injured were found to be simple in nature. Blow was not repeated by Mohinder Singh. But submission of learned defence counsel seems to be not correct one. Motive is double edged weapon. Motive is always in the heart of the accused. Motive can be to implicate the accused. At the same time, motive can be to cause injuries. Appellants-accused are related to the complainant party. They had a common tube-well. Land was being irrigated turn by turn. On 8.12.1994, turn of water was of the appellants-accused, but no evidence on the file that there was no electric light on 8.12.1994. Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 26 Admittedly, on 9.12.1994, was the turn of the complainant party. When complainant party was insisting to irrigate land as per their turn then appellants-accused had the motive to cause injuries because they failed to irrigate their land as per their turn of water on 8.12.1994. As per defence version, there was a dispute regarding irrigation of land. So, we presume that if prosecution failed to prove motive, even then on this short ground, story is not to be ignored. When no cogent and convincing evidence qua motive, then evidence on the file is to be scrutinized with great care and caution.
Next submissions of learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused was that Mohinder Singh was armed with a kirpan but only one blow was given to Surinder Singh. Blow was not repeated. Gurmit Singh was armed with a gandasi which was not recovered. Gandasi blow was given to Jagir Singh but Jagir Singh failed to appear in Court to state that blow to him was given by Gurmit Singh. Second allegation of the prosecution that Gurmit Singh raised a lalkara but Ravel Singh failed to state that Gurmit Singh had raised a lalkara. Gurmit Singh was in the army. So, he was Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 27 falsely implicated. Jagtar Singh was armed with a dattar. Injury caused to Surjit Kaur on the left wrist was found to be simple in nature. Jaga Singh was armed with a dattar but dattar was not recovered. No injury to the deceased. Injury on the thumb of Ravel Singh was found to be simple in nature. Paramjit Singh was armed with dang but dang was not recovered. Injury caused on the person of Ravel Singh was found to be simple in nature. Second injury was to Jagir Singh but Jagir Singh was not examined by the prosecution. Appellants-accused had no common object to murder. In fact, as per evidence on the file they had the motive to cause injuries. Submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused seems to be reasonable one. Occurrence was in front of the house of the complainant party. Appellants-accused and the complainant party had the joint tube-well. There was no previous enmity amongst the parties. Tube-well was being used by the parties to irrigate their land turn by turn. On the day of occurrence, there was a dispute regarding irrigation of land. Allegation of the appellants-accused was that they failed to irrigate their land on 8.12.1994 due to non- availability of electricity. Allegation of the complainant Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 28 party was that they had a turn of water, so they are to irrigate their land. Only one injury by Mohinder Singh. Blow was not repeated. Gandasi, dattar and dang were not recovered from Gurmit Singh, Jaga Singh and Parmjit Singh. Appellants-accused did not repeat the blow with their respective weapons. In case, appellants- accused had the intention to murder, then Gurmit Singh, Jagtar Singh, Jaga Singh or Paramjit Singh fully armed could easily cause injuries to Surinder Singh. Mohinder Singh armed with kirpan could have repeated the blow. Appellants-accused had no knowledge that with one kirpan blow, Surinder Singh was to die. When there was no previous enmity amongst the parties and blow was not repeated by either of the appellants- accused, then we are of the confirmed view that the appellants-accused had no common object or intention to murder but they had the intention to cause only injuries.
Last submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused was that Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh were juvenile at the time of commission of offence. Date of birth of Jagtar Singh is 7.10.1978 and of Paramjit Singh is 28.2.1977, as per birth certificates on the file. Maximum punishment as per Section 15 of Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 29 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is three years. As per Section 20 of the Act, above said accused are entitled to the benefit of juvenility. Submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants-accused is correct one. As per Section 2
(k) of the Act. "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteen year of age. As per Section 15 of the Act if a Board is satisfied that a juvenile had committed an offence then Board may make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a special home for a period of three years. As per Section 2 of the Act, Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh are to get benefit of juvenility. Section 20 Explanation of the Act is reproduced as under:-
" In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of clause (1) of section 2, even if the juvenile ceases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 30 had been in force, for all purposes and at all material times when the alleged offence was committed."
File shows that Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh have undergone actual sentence of more than three years.
No other submission was put forward.
In the light of above discussion, appeal qua Mohinder Singh is dismissed.
Appeal on behalf of Gurmit Singh, Jaga Singh is also dismissed but they are held liable individually for their own acts for causing injuries and not for murder. They are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone.
Appeal on behalf of Jagtar Singh and Paramjit Singh is allowed partly. Their conviction is sustained. Being Juvenile, they are directed to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on 29.5.2009 to hear on the point of sentence.
(JORA SINGH)
JUDGE
April 22, 2009 (JASBIR SINGH)
Anoop JUDGE
Criminal Appeal.No.612-DB of 2000. 31