Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2010
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) Decided on : September 20, 2010 Satpal Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.APS Mann, Amicus curiae - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.-
Out of the two accused, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa vide judgment dated 24.4.1999 while acquitting accused Darshan Singh, convicted and sentenced the accused Satpal Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
The facts in brief are that on 17.2.1999 at about 12.00 noon, Nahar Singh son of Bhag Singh r/o village Aklia (herein referred as `the complainant') along with his brother Lal Singh had gone to the fields known as `Dhaban Wale Khet'. When the complainant reached there, he noticed that accused Satpal Singh and Darshan Singh were putting earth by the side of the `khal' (water channel). The complainant prevented them from doing so, upon which accused Satpal Singh abused him and inflicted a `kahi' blow on the head of the complainant. In the meantime, Darshan Singh also Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [2] inflicted a `kahi' blow on his right hand. Satpal Singh gave another kahi blow from its reverse side, hitting the left side of his back. On raising hue and cry, both the accused ran away from the spot.
The motive behind the occurrence is that there remained dispute over common boundary of their adjoining fields. Earlier, a week prior to the occurrence, a dispute had arisen but it was settled by the Panchayat. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made on 17.2.1997 (Ex.PF), the First Information Report (Ex.PF/2) was registered. Assistant Sub Inspector Santokh Singh handled the investigation; recorded the statements of the witnesses; collected the medico legal report of the injured; received the opinion of the doctor with regard to injury No.1 and on completion of the investigation, submitted challan against the accused in the Court.
Finding a prima facie case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the accused were charged as such, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Tajinder Pal Singh Rekhi (PW1), Dr.Kulwant Singh (PW2), Nahar Singh- complainant (PW3), Lal Singh- eye witness (PW4), Assistant Sub Inspector Santokh Singh (PW5) and Dr.R.K.Kaushal Neuro Surgeon from DMC Ludhiana (PW6).
When examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. In defence, they examined Mithu Singh (DW1) and Hakam Singh (DW2). The trial ended in acquittal of Darshan Singh and conviction of Satpal Singh.
Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [3]
It is urged by the counsel for the appellant that there is no motive behind the occurrence, but after scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that both the complainant (PW3) and Lal Singh (PW4) have testified that their field adjoins the land owned by the father of the accused and there remained a dispute between them on account of the common boundary of both the fields. Both have testified that a week prior to the occurrence, a dispute had taken place over the said boundary. However, the matter was settled through the Panchayat, but the accused persons were developing a grudge on account of that. No evidence has been led in order to shatter the aforesaid testimonies of the two witnesses. Despite lengthy cross-examinations conducted upon them, nothing such was elicited which may be sufficient to impeach their credibility.
As regards the occurrence, the complainant, an injured eye- witness has fully supported the prosecution version. He has stated that on 17.2.1997 when he as well as Lal Singh (PW4) interrupted the accused from demolishing the boundary, then they got infuriated. Satpal Singh inflicted a `kahi' blow on the head and Darshan Singh inflicted a kahi blow on the right hand of the complainant; Satpal Singh gave another kahi blow from its reverse side, hitting left side of his back. The testimonies of the witnesses also stand corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr.Kulwant Singh (PW2), who had conducted the medico legal examination upon the complainant on 17.2.1997 at 3.00 PM observed the following injuries on his person:-
"1. 5 cms x 1 cm incised wound on the left parietal region, 1 cm from mid-line & 10 cms from the anterior hair line, bone deep obliquely placed. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray skull. Kept under observation.Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [4]
2. 2 cms x 1 cm abrasion on the dorsum of right hand in its mid-line. Red in colour. Advised X-ray.
3. 5 cms x 3 cms contusion on the left interscapular and medial border of the scalp present. Red in colour. Advised X- ray, scapular region."
He further opined that probable duration of the injuries was within 36 hours. The injury No.1 was the result of sharp-edged weapon, whereas, injuries No.2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon. Ultimately, on X-ray examination, he declared injuries No.2 and 3 as simple in nature and on the police request he opined, vide his endorsement (Ex.PC) that injury No.1 on the person of the complainant was dangerous to life. Dr.Tajinder Pal Singh Rekhi (PW1), who got the injuries X-rayed, vide his X-ray report Ex.PA observed as under:-
"1. X-ray skull AP and lateral view shows fracture left parietal bone.
2. X-ray right hand AP and lateral view. No bony injury detected.
3. X-ray left scapular region. No bony injury is detected."
Again, there is another doctor, namely Dr.R.K.Kaushal, Neuro Surgeon at DMC, Ludhiana, who had treated the injured observed depressed fracture of the left side of the brain along with tear of dura and underlying brain injury. As regards the opinion, he stated that no police officer had sought his opinion regarding the nature of the injury. However, on the question asked by the defence counsel, he stated that the injury, according to his opinion, was by a sharp edged weapon. He has also proved the Bed Head Ticket on the file and operation notes (Ex.PR). Thus, on Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [5] appreciation of the evidence, brought on record, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that the accused Satpal Singh had caused a fatal blow to Nahar Singh - complainant.
As regards the delay in lodging the First Information Report, it is observed that the occurrence took place on 17.2.1997 at 12.00 noon and the injured was admitted in the hospital and medico legal examination was conducted at 3.00 PM. On account of the deteriorating condition of the injured, he was referred to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala on the next day. Assistant Sub Inspector Santokh Singh moved an application at Civil Hospital, Mansa at 1.30 PM and vide endorsement (Ex.PH), the injured was found unfit to make a statement and recorded his statement Ex.PF at 2.30 PM, on the basis of which the formal FIR was registered at 3.50 PM. As such, no inordinate delay appears to have been caused in lodging the FIR. The delay, if any, stands explained. It is also often seen that where a serious injury is caused to a person, then the main concern of the attendants is to get him treated without wasting any time and then to go to the Police Station to lodge the FIR. Similar observations were made in Buta Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports 292 (P&H), wherein, it was observed that where the injured had suffered injury on his neck, it was immediate concern of the relatives to save his life and to provide medical aid, rather than running to the police station for registration of an FIR. Thus, the delay, if any caused does not negative the testimonies of the witnesses and other corroborative evidence on record. It is further noticed that police personnel also prefer to get first hand truthful information from the injured and they remain anxious to get his statement Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [6] and in case of failure to get his statement, they lodge the case on the statement of the eye-witnesse.
Now, coming to the most crucial argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the injury as caused by the accused does not fall within the purview of Section 307 IPC and that since Dr.R.K.Kaushal (PW6) did not give any opinion regarding the nature of the injury, therefore, the opinion given by Dr.Kulwant Singh (PW2) is of no consequence and, as such, the case could, at the most, be covered by Section 325 IPC, it is observed that after scrutinising the statements of Nahar Singh (injured - PW3) and Lal Singh (PW4), so also the medical evidence on the record, it would be apposite to mention that three injuries were found on the person of Nahar Singh by Dr.Kulwant Singh (PW2). Injury No.1 on the scalp i.e. left parietal region is attributed to accused Satpal Singh - accused/appellant. Dr.Kulwant Singh, after examining the X-ray report and the Bed Head Ticket, opined that the injury on the person of the complainant was dangerous to life. Dr.Tajinder Pal Singh Rekhi (PW1), who X-rayed the injuries has found fracture of left parietal bone. Not only this, Dr.R.K.Kaushal (PW6), who operated the said injury and treated the injured, has also corroborated the fact that there was depressed fracture of the left side of the brain along with tear of dura and underlying brain injury. The argument that no opinion was sought from Dr.R.K.Kaushal about the nature of the injury, is of no consequence as he was not supposed to give the opinion. He had operated upon the injured and treated him. He operated upon the injured and gave operation notes in the Bed Head Ticket and proved the same as Ex.PR. The relevant part of the Bed Head Ticket containing the operation note as proved by Dr.R.K.Kaushal, reads as Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [7] under:-
"Findings - healed scalp laceration (L) parietal. There was # (fracture) of the parietal bone starting from mid-line & extending downwards towards a piece of bone gong inside the brain. There was dural tear about 7 cm, extending from the mid-line - vertically downwards. There was laceration of underlying brain for about 7 cm and underlying brain was dirty yellowish/ earthy colour without bulging. Duroplasty done pericranial fascia. Medial sutures could not be put & graft was spread under the dura & gelfoam put over it. Wound closed in 2 layers with subgabal drain...."
From the aforesaid operation note, as proved by him as also the injuries explained in medico legal report and the Bed Head Ticket, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that the injury was dangerous to life and the injured could be saved only because of his timely treatment. The doctor, who had, treated the injury was not required to give any opinion. However, his statement in all respects establishes that the injury was caused with a sharp-edged deadly weapon and it was on the vital part of the body, affecting the brain badly. In this connection, a reference could be made to the reported judgment in case of Ajay Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 437, wherein, it was observed that in order to attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC, the intention or the knowledge is to be seen, which can be gathered from the seat and nature of the injuries, nature of weapon, motive, repetition of blows and Criminal Appeal No.483-SB of 1999(O&M) [8] consequences of injuries.
In the present case, it is evident that accused Satpal Singh gave injury with a `kahi' on the head of the complainant, which was sufficient to cause death in case immediate medical aid would not have been provided. The intention, knowledge and motive of the accused is also proved on the record. It is also experienced in this part of the country that boundary disputes take very serious turn and the people go to the extent of taking lives of their rivals over the said dispute. Thus, the findings returned by the Trial Court qua the guilt of the accused - appellant need no interference.
As regards the quantum of sentence, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded commensurates the offence committed.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
September 20, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE