Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Kala And Another vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003
Date of decision : 24.10.2013
Satnam Singh alias Kala and another
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Mr. J.S.Mehandiratta, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, and Mr. B.S.Baath, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellants Satnam Singh alias Kala and Randhir Singh alias Dhira have filed the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur, vide which they have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each on each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months each on Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [2] each count under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.05.2000, Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh received wireless message that Tarlok Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were admitted with injuries in Civil Hospital, Batala. Then Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh alongwith other police officials reached the said hospital and after obtaining the opinion regarding the fitness of injured, statement Ex.PA of Tarlok Singh was recorded. Complainant Tarlok Singh, in his statement, stated that Lakhwinder Singh, Randhir Singh and Surjit Singh are his brothers. Randhir Singh was forcibly cultivating 9 marlas of land belonging to Surjit Singh. In a joint family meeting, all the members tried to persuade Randhir Singh to give up the possession of said 9 marlas of land but he told that he will tell after discussing the matter with his family members.
On 17.05.2000 at about 5:00 p.m., Randhir Singh hired a tractor and started ploughing the said 9 marlas of land. When the complainant went there, he saw accused Satnam Singh armed with 'kirpan' and accused Randhir Singh armed with 'dattar' standing there. When complainant and his brother Lakhwinder Singh started preventing Randhir Singh not to plough the land of Surjit Singh then Randhir Singh raised lalkara and Satnam Singh alias Kala gave a 'kirpan' blow on the right side of head of complainant and he fell down. Satnam Singh again gave a 'kirpan' blow on the right arm of Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [3] complainant. Randhir Singh inflicted a 'dattar blow which hit on the left arm of Lakhwinder Singh. When complainant and Lakhwinder Singh raised alarm, Manjit Kaur, wife of complainant, reached the spot. Then both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. The owner of the tractor also ran away from the site of occurrence with his tractor. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested and 'kirpan' was recovered from Satnam Singh and the same was taken into police possession. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, Satnam Singh alias Kala accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Randhir Singh accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Tarlok Singh, complainant and injured, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Manjit Kaur, wife of complainant Tarlok Singh (PW1) also deposed as per prosecution version. PW3 Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [4] Lakhwinder Singh, another injured, did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. PW4 Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case. PW5 ASI Baldev Singh, who joined the police party headed by Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh, also deposed regarding the investigation of this case. PW6 Dr. Paramjit Singh, Medical Officer, deposed that on 17.05.2000 at 6:40 p.m. he conducted the medico-legal examination of Tarlok Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Incised wound measuring 9 x 1.5 cm on right side of head. 12 cm above the right ear pinna. Wound was bone deep.
2. Incised wound measuring 6 x 1.5 cm on medial surface of right forearm. 9 cm proximal to wrist joint. Wound was bone deep and x-ray was advised for this injury.
As per doctor (PW6), both the injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon. Duration of the injuries was within four hours. The doctor gave his opinion that as per x-ray report, injury No.1 was simple and injury No.2 was grievous. This witness also proved his report Ex.PJ and x-ray report Ex.PJ/1 which was given by Dr.Gurmit Singh, whose signatures he (PW6) identified. PW7 Dr. Jagdev Singh Chahal deposed that on 17.05.2000 at 8:20 p.m., he conducted the medico-legal examination of Lakhwinder Singh and found the following injury on his person:-
Malhotra Mamta2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [5] "Incised wound 6½ cm x 1½ cm on back and upper part of left forearm at its upper part including the left elbow joint. Fresh blood clots were present at wound site. On removing the clots, wound was bleeding. Injury was kept under observation for x-ray examination. Covering cloth was having perforation and was stained with blood." The doctor deposed that as per x-ray report, injury was declared as grievous in nature. He proved his report Ex.PL. This witness also deposed that the x-ray report was given by Dr.Gurmit Singh, whose signatures he identified. PW8 Head Constable Devinder Singh and PW9 Constable Pargat Singh are the formal witnesses who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PM and Ex.PN respectively.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Dr. Gurmit Singh, SMO, who mainly deposed that on 23.05.2000, he medico legally examined Randhir Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Partially healed infected wound 2 cm in length which was looking to be incised wound was present transversely over the dorsal aspect and middle of Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [6] middle phalynx of right hand middle finger and was surrounded by swelling of the whole phalynx. X-ray of little finger right hand was advised.
2. Multiple reddish contusions of 6 in number measuring 10 cm x 1 cm, 7 cm x ½ cm, 10 cm x ½ cm and 6 cm x ½ cm, again 6 cm x ½ cm and 7 cm x ½ cm was also present on the front part of chest and abdominal wall.
3. Reddish contusion 12 cm x 1½ cm was present on the antero-lateral aspect of left upper arm in its middle part.
4. Reddish contusion 12 cm x 1 cm was present on the antero-lateral aspect of the middle part of the right upper arm.
5. Reddish contusion of 16 cm x 2 cm on back of chest of right side.
6. Reddish contusion of 12 cm x 2 ½ cm on back of lower part of chest of left side.
7. Reddish contusion of 9 cm x 1 cm was present on front part of middle of left thigh.
8. Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 1 cm was present on antero lateral side of mid of right thigh.
Duration of injuries No.1 was 5 to 7 days whereas duration of injury Nos.2 to 8 was 16 hours. As per doctor (DW1), injury Nos.2 to 8 were caused with blunt weapon and injury No.1 was caused with sharp edged weapon. DW2 Ram Masih, Criminal Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [7] Ahlmad of the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, mainly deposed regarding the order passed for summoning the accused Randhir Singh, Tarlok Singh etc. in criminal complaint. DW3 Head Constable Iqbal Singh mainly deposed regarding conducting inquiry against Sub Inspector Baldev Singh, Sub Inspector Malkit Singh etc. In cross-examination, it is stated that no action has been taken against aforessaid two police officials and the inquiry is pending with Harminder Singh, Superintendent of Police, Batala.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out as x-ray films have not been proved by the prosecution. Depth of cut has not been mentioned. Prosecution has not examined Dr.Gurmit Singh, Radiologist, who has prepared the x-ray report. This witness has been examined as DW1 by the appellant-accused but in cross-examination, the prosecution has not put the x-ray reports or the x-ray films before this witness to prove the same. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that there is injury on the person of accused also which is not explained. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that PW3 Lakhwinder Singh, injured, has not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile which creates doubt in the prosecution version. Therefore, Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [8] learned counsel for the appellants contended that there being merit in the appeal, it should be allowed.
On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the injured eye witnesses. Their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and the investigation of the case. Learned State counsel contended that x-ray reports have been duly proved by identifying the signatures of Dr. Gurmit Singh. Learned State counsel further contended that injuries No.2 to 8 on the person of appellant-accused Randhir Singh cannot be connected with the occurrence which took place on 17.05.2000 as the duration of these injuries was only 16 hours. Injury No.1, which is only on the finger, is fabricated one. Therefore, learned State counsel contended that there is no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, I find that PW3 Lakhwinder Singh, injured has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. But, even then PW1 Tarlok Singh, complainant, who is also an injured witness and real brother of PW3 Lakhwinder Singh as well as of appellant-accused Randhir Singh alias Dhira has deposed as per prosecution version. Complainant Tarlok Singh (PW1) has deposed that Satnam Singh alias Kala was armed with 'kirpan' and Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [9] he gave injury on his (complainant) head and right arm. The injury on the right arm has been declared as grievous. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that in the present case, the x-ray films have not been proved on record. There is nothing on the record as to who had conducted the x-ray examination. No radiologist has been examined. Only x-ray reports Ex.PJ/1 and Ex.PL/1 have been proved by identifying the signatures of Dr.Gurmit Singh. On the basis of these x-ray reports Ex.PJ/1 and Ex.PL/1, Dr.Paramjit Singh (PW6) and Dr.Jagdev Singh Chahal respectively have deposed that injury No.2 on the person of Tarlok Singh(PW1) and injury No.1 on the person of Lakhwinder Singh (PW3) were declared as grievous. The prosecution has not taken any step to examine the radiologist in this case nor the prosecution has examined Dr. Gurmit Singh, SMO (DW1) but he, while appearing as DW1 in this case, has not deposed regarding preparing the x-ray films of Tarlok Singh (PW1) and Lakhwinder Singh (PW3). Even in cross-examination, the prosecution has not put the x-ray reports nor the x-ray films before DW1 Dr. Gurmit Singh for proving the same. A prejudice has been caused to the accused as no opportunity to cross-examine the radiologist has been given to them. The x-ray reports cannot be held as proved by identifying the signatures of Dr.Gurmit Singh especially when he appeared in this case as DW1 and the said reports have not been put to him. Therefore, the x-ray reports Ex.PL/1 and Ex.PJ/1 are not proved as per law. There is also nothing on the record Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [10] whether PW6 Dr. Paramjit Singh had ever worked with Dr.Gurmit Singh (DW1) or how he (PW6) identified his (DW1) signatures. There is nothing on record that PW6 Dr. Paramjit Singh had ever seen Dr. Gurmit Singh while signing or writing. Even PW6 Dr. Paramjit Singh, in cross-examination, has stated that he cannot give the depth of bone cut of injury No.2 without x-ray. He also deposed that he cannot give the depth of bone cut as the same is not mentioned in the x-ray report. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the injury on the persons of injured as grievous which means that the prosecution has only proved simple injuries caused with sharp edged weapon and the case will fall under Section 324 IPC against appellant Satnam Singh alias Kala and under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC against appellant Randhir Singh alias Dhira.
PW1 Tarlok Singh, complainant and PW2 Manjit Kaur have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. No material contradictions or material improvements have been pointed out at the time of arguments which may go to the root of the case. The perusal of the statements of these PWs does not show anything which may make their statements unreliable. They are truthful and trustworthy witnesses. Their statements have been duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. Even if Lakhwinder Singh (PW3) has not supported the prosecution version, it cannot be held as fatal to the prosecution case nor it creates any Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [11] reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. Therefore, on this ground also, no benefit can be given to the appellants.
As regarding injuries on the person of appellant-accused Randhir Singh, duration of injuries No.2 to 8, as per Dr. Gurmit Singh (DW1) was within 16 hours, which cannot be connected with the occurrence which took place on 17.05.2000 and he was medico legally examined on 23.05.2000. As regarding injury No.1 on the middle finger of Randhir Singh, no reason or explanation is there as to why he was not medico legally examined immediately after the occurrence. Therefore, on this ground also, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the appellant Satnam Singh alias Kala under Section 324 IPC and against Randhir Singh alias Dhira under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC by leading cogent evidence. The occurrence took place in the year 2000. It is told to this Court that since then no occurrence has taken place between the complainant and appellants-accused. Appellant Randhir Singh is the real brother of Complainant Tarlok Singh (PW1) and Lakhwinder Singh (PW3), injured persons. About 13½ years have been passed. The injuries caused by the appellants on the persons of injured are simple. Both the appellants have already undergone one month sentence.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, Malhotra Mamta 2013.11.06 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003 [12] both the appellants Satnam Singh alias Kala and Randhir Singh alias Dhira are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Section 324 and under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC respectively. Since the appellants are on bail, therefore, their bail/surety bonds stand discharged.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant appeal is partly allowed.
24.10.2013 (INDERJIT SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
Malhotra Mamta
2013.11.06 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh