Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaggar Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1989CRILJ1980
JUDGMENT J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. Jaggar Singh and Harnek Singh appellants along with their Co-accused Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh (since acquitted) were tried on the charge of murder of Baldev Singh besides for causing grievous injuries to Harnek Singh ( PW 7), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt while Jaggar Singh and Harnek Singh appellants were held guilty under Section 302, I.P.C., for committing the murder of Baldev Singh and each one of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment thereof, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that the land of Jaggar Singh and Harnek Singh accused as well as of Baldev Singh deceased and his brothers Harnek Singh (PW7) and Hardev Singh adjoined each other. On June 27, 1984, at about 6 A.M., Jagraj Singh son of Harnek Singh (PW 7) informed his father at his house that all the accused have dismantled the common boundary ridge of their fields and encroached upon their land. Harnek Singh PW along with his brother Baldev Singh deceased, then went to their fields for lodging the protest with the accused On reaching there, they found Karam Singh accused levelling his land with a tractor while Jaggar Singh, Harnek Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused were standing nearby. Baldev Singh deceased asked the accused as to why they had demolished the common boundary ridge without their consent. Upon this, Jaggar Singh appellant shouted that he should be taught a lesson for lodging the protest. Jaggar Singh, Harnek Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused were armed with a gandasa each while Karam Singh accused was armed with a Kassia. Baldev Singh tried to turn back, but Jaggar Singh dealt a gandasa blow on his head hitting him at the nape. Harnek Singh and Karam Singh accused also dealt a gandasa blow each on his head with their respective weapons. Karam Singh accused also gave a kassia blow on the dorsum of right hand of Baldev Singh. Harnek Singh PW raised alarm. Thereupon, Sukhdev Singh accused inflicted a gandasa blow on the nose of Harnek Singh which resulted in his fall then Harnek Singh accused gave another gandasa blow on his back and Jaggar Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on his shoulder, Harnek Singh PW then got up and managed to snatch the gandasa of Sukhdev Singh accused and cause injuries to all the four accused in self-defence. Puran Singh(PW 8) and Joginder Singh (PW 9) were also present in the nearby fields and witnessed the entire occurrence. Thereafter all the accused along with their respective weapons ran away. Baldev Singh was found unconscious at the spot. Joginder Singh PW brought a tractor-trolley of Surjit Singh and thereafter removed Baldev Singh and Harnek Singh injured to the Primary Health Centre, Tappa. Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1) examined Harnek Singh PW at 8.15 A.M. on that day and found three incised wounds on his person. Injury No. 3 on the right side of the nose was found grievous in nature. This doctor also examined Baldev Singh (since deceased) at 8.30 A.M. and found three incised wounds and diffused swelling on his person. Two of the incised wounds were located on the left side of the scalp while the third was on the right side of the head The diffused swelling was on the right hand middle ring finger. All these injuries were kept under observation. He sent the intimation at 8.05 A.M., vide ruqa Exhibit PA/2, to the in charge of Police Station Tappa, regarding the arrival of the injured. On receipt of which, ASI Tarsem Singh (PW 11) of Police Station Sehna, rushed to Primary Health Centre, Tappa, but Baldev Singh deceased was declared unfit to make the statement by Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1). He then recorded the statement, Exhibit PH, of Harnek Singh PW. It was concluded at 4 P.M., and on the basis of which, formal first information report Exhibit PH/2 was got recorded through S.I. Sucha Singh (PW 12) at Police Station, Sehna, at 5.30 P.M. on 27th June, 1984, for the offences under Sections 307/34, 326,324 and 235, I.P.C., against appellants Jaggar Singh & Harnek Singh, besides Gurbachan Singh and Dharam Singh. S.I. Sucha Singh then went to the spot on 28th June, 1984 and prepared its rough site plan Exhibit P.R. He also seized the blood-stained earth from the spot after putting into sealed parcel in the presence of Joginder Singh PW and ASI Tarsem Singh. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He found all the accused absconding from the village. Thereafter, he went to the Primary Health Centre, Tappa, for recording the statement of Baldev Singh (since deceased) but doctor declared, him unfit to do so. Baldev Singh injured was referred for treatment to C.M.C, Hospital, Ludhiana on 29th June, 1984, by Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1), but he was first got admitted in the Dayanand Medical Hospital, Ludhiana, and later on shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana Dr. H. Mishra (PW 6) Registrar of General Surgery in C.M.C. Hospital, treated Baldev Singh in the hospital, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on 2nd July, 1984, at 12.10 P.M. On receiving intimation regarding his death, SI Sucha Singh then got the offence changed to one under Section 302/34 IPC. He rushed to C.M.C Hospital, Ludhiana, and drafted inquest report Exhibit PE/2 on the dead body of Baldev Singh and got it subjected to post-mortem examination from Dr. Uggar Singh (PW4) of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana This doctor observed three stitched wounds on the head of the deadbody. On exploration of skull he detected fracture of both the parietal bones and the presence of sub-dural haemotoma under injury on the right parietal region. The brain tissues were found lacerated. This injury was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
From the supplementary statement of Harnek Singh PW as well as from the statements of Joginder Singh and Puran Singh eyewitnesses, it transpired that Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh accused had participated in this assault and not Gurbachan Singh and Dharam Singh. ASI Tarsem Singh arrested all these four accused from village Jaimal Singh Wala on 17th July, 1984, when they were produced before him by Teja Singh Sarpanch. On 20th July, 1984, all these accused were interrogated by ASI Tarsem Singh at the police station in the presence of Teja Singh Sarpanch and H.C. Gurcharan Singh. In pursuance of their respective disclosure statements Jaggar Singh Harnek Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused got recovered a gandasa each from the sugarcane field while Karam Singh accused got recovered a Kassia from the said sugarcane field The chemical examiner and the serologist failed to detect human blood on the earth and on any of these weapons except on one gandasa. After completion of investigation, all the accused were arraigned for trial on such like allegations for the murder of Baldev Singh and for causing grievous injuries to Harnek Singh PW.
3. Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution has examined Harnek Singh (PW 7), Puran Singh (PW 8) and Joginder Singh (PW 9) as witnesses to the actual occurrence, besides leading medical evidence and examining the investigators. The version of all the four accused before the trial Court was that Harnek Singh PW and Baldev Singh (deceased) along with Furdev Singh, Raj Singh and Tek Singh had attacked and caused injuries to them with spades while they were levelling their field named Dhab Wala and that Baldev Singh and Harnek Singh had received injuries during aggression. In support of their defence, the accused examined Dr. Jagdish Raj (DW 2), who deposed having found eight injuries on the person of Jaggar Singh accused during his medical examination on 27th June, 1984. Out of which injury No. 2 on the left fore-arm was declared grievous (X-ray examination revealed that there was communited fracture of left radius bone, this doctor found four injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh accused, out of which injury No. 2 on his left fore-arm was declared grievous. Four simple injuries were also found on the person of Karam Singh accused while two incised wounds were found on the person of Jaggar Singh accused. The trial Court believing the prosecution version convicted and sentenced Jaggar Singh and Harnek Singh. Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh accused were, however, acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt as their names did not figure in the first information report lodged by Harnek Singh injured.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides perusing the records.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that their lands adjoined each other. According to Harnam Singh PW, his son Jagraj Singh had apprised him at his house in the village at 6 A.M. about the accused having demolished the common boundary ridge of their fields. Thereafter, he along with his brother Bandev Singh deceased had gone to the fields for lodging the protest. According to him, when he and the deceased reached near the field, the accused were levelling their land with the help of the tractor driven by Karam Singh accused. It is not his case that the accused were still indulging in the demolition of the common ridge. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused were committing the offence of mischief by demolishing the common ridge or encroaching upon the land of the deceased at the time of the actual occurrence. On the other hand, the accused were levelling their own land. Even if it is taken that the accused had earlier demolished the common ridge of their field and that of the deceased, it cannot be said that the complainant party was entitled "to assault the accused in the exercise of the right of protection of their property, as the alleged trespass on their land had come to an end and the offence of mischief, if any, had already been completed. The question then arises whether the complainant party was the aggressor or the accused party. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Harnek Singh PW or his brother Baldev Singh deceased would not go unarmed to their field for lodging the protest especially when the aforesaid Jaggar Singh had apprised them about the accused having demolished the common ridge of their field. Under these circumstances, the testimony of Harnek Singh, Puran Singh and Joginder Singh eye-witnesses to the effect that none of the witnesses was armed with any weapon is not acceptable. This conclusion is further fortified from the factum that in the First Information Report Exhibit PH/2, Hareek Singh injured had simply alleged that the accused have also sustained some injuries at their hands during the scuffle, but during his testimony at the trial he came forth with a strange version to the effect that he fell down after suffering a kassia blow at his nose at the hands of Sukhdev Singh accused. Thereafter, Harnek Singh accused also gave a gandasa blow at his back and Jaggar Singh gave a gandasa blow at his shoulder. He then got up and managed to snatch the gandas from Sukhdev Singh accused. He brandished the gandasa and caused some injuries to the accused Apart from the factum that Harnek Singh PW is prone to improve upon his version from stage to stage in order to explain the injuries on the person of accused by hook or by crook, it further appears that single-handedly he would not be able to cause as many as eighteen injuries on the person of four accused without suffering any injury at the hands of the latter. To crown it all, it is not acceptable that Harnek Singh PW would be in a position to wield the gandasa after suffering a grievous injury at his nose.
6. No doubt, ordinarily the number of injuries suffered by the complainant and the accused party is not always a safe criteria for judging as to which party was the aggressor, as one party may take upper hand during the assault as compared to other, but in the present case, the testimony of Harnek Singh, Joginder Singh and Puran Singh witnesses about the former; i.e., Harnek Singh PW having caused eighteen injuries on the persons of the accused single- handed is not acceptable being improbable. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the injuries suffered by the deceased Baldev Singh, Harnek Singh PW as well as by the accused:
Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1) found the following three injuries on the person of Harnek Singh PW:
1. An incised wound 7 x cms x 0.7 cm on the neck, muscle deep opposite the lower phrocic vertebrae. Margins were clean cut and sharp. The wound was oblique in direction from up to down. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. An incised wound 4 cms x 1 cm on the back. It was 1 cm in depth. Margins were clean cut and sharp. Tapering at both ends. It was situated opposite the upper phrocic vertibrae. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. Incised wound 5.5 cms x 5 cm on the right side of the nose. It was 1.5 cm is depth. There was a cut in the underlying bone. Margins were sharp, regular and fresh bleeding was present.
Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were found simple while injury No. 3 was declared grievous. During cross-examination, this doctor rightly opined that Harnek Singh PW after receiving injuries would not be able to wield any weapon or cause any injury to the accused party as the grievous injury on the nose would have certainly rendered him unconscious or at least dumbfounded Thus, the medical evidence clearly shows that Harnek Singh PW has caused injuries to some of the accused before he himself suffered grievous injury on his nose and gives a death knell to his version that he was able to give eighteen injuries on the persons of all the accused after suffering all these injuries. Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1) also medically examined Baldev Singh deceased at 8.30 a.m. on 27th June, 1984, and found the following four injuries on his person:
1. An incised wound 9 cms x 1 cm on the right side of the scalp. It was 1.5 cm in depth. Margins were clean, cut and regular. Underlying bone was cut in an area of 8 cms. It was 8 cms from the centre and 2 cms from the hair margin.
2. An incised wound 10 cms x 5 cm on the left side of scalp. It was 1 cm in depth Margins were clean cut and regular. It was 6 cms from the centre and 9 cms from the left ear.
3. An incised wound 6 cms x 75 cms on the left side of scalp. It was 1 cm in depth, It was 10 cms from the hair margin and 7 cms from the ear.
4. Diffused swelling on the posterior surface of little finger and ring finger and the proximal phalanx on the right side.
All these injuries were kept under observation, Dr. Sanjiv Sodhi (PW 3) Radiologist of C.M.C Hospital, Ludhiana, on X-ray examination of the skull of Baldev Singh detected multiple fractures of the frontal as well as both the parietal bones. He also found fractures of the 4th and 5th proximal phalanx of the ring finger. During autopsy, Dr. Uggar Singh (PW 4) found that injury on the right side of skull of Baldev Singh was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature as it has resulted in laceration of brain tissues. Absolutely there is no doubt that all the injuries were ante-mortem. On the other hand, the gravity of injuries on the head of Baldev Singh further shows that he would not be able to cause any injury on the persons of four accused after suffering any one of the three injuries on his head.
7. On the other hand, the evidence of Dr. Jagdish Rai(PW 2) shows that during medical examination of Jaggar Singh accused on 27th June, 1984, at Civil Hospital Barnala, he had found the following eight injuries on his person:
1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm which, bled on examination on outer surface of left arm, 11 cms below elbow, area around it was swollen. X-ray was advised
2. Bruise 4 cms x 1 cm longitudinal red in colour on front of the left fore-arm in middle. Area around it was swollen. X-ray was advised.
3. Lacerated wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm on the outer border of left foot in its middle blead on examination.
4. Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm on the outer surface of left leg 3 cms above ankle obliquely situated.
5. Bruise 8 cms x 2 obliquely transverse on the front of the right thigh, 8 cms above knee. Reddish in colour.
6. Lacerated wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm on the right side of the head, 7 cms above middle of eyebrow.
7. Abrasion 2 cms x 0.5 cm on the left side of head, 3 cms above left ear.
8. Abrasion lineal 4 cms on the front of the right fore-arm in inner aspect, 5 cms below eye-brow.
Doctor declared injury No. 2 on the left forearm as grievous because its X-ray examination revealed the fracture of the left radious bone.
8. This doctor also found four injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh accused during his medical examination on the same day:
1. Incised wound 2.5 cms x cm on the inner surface of left fore-arm obliquely situated over the lower end of ulna bone. Fresh bleading was present. X-ray was advised.
2. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.25 cm on the inner surface of left fore-arm, 11 cms below the elbow. Fresh bleeding was present, longitudinal in direction. X-ray was advised
3. Incised wound 3.5 cms x 2 cms on, the outer surface of left fore-arm, 6 cms above the wrist, Part of the skin had been shaved off from the area of injury.
4. A brasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on I he tlursum of left hand 1.5 cm above the ankle on the index finger.
Injury No. 2 declared grievous in nature as its-X-ray examination revealed the fracture of left ulna bone in its upper part.
9. This doctor also medically examined Karam Singh accused on that very day and observed the following four simple injuries on his person:
1. Lacerated wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm x scalp deep on the left side of forehead, 1.5 cm above and parallel to eye-brow in its outer part. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. Incised wound 2.5 cms x 1 cm in front of right elbow transversely situated. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. Incised wound irregular 5 cms x 2 cms, part of the skin was shaved off and attached in upper part, wound was bleeding; situated obliquely on the outer surface of left leg, 4 cms above ankle.
4. Abrasion 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm on the outer surface of left leg, 4 cms above injury No, 3.
10. Harnek, Singh accused was also examined by this doctor on that day at 11.25 a.m. and following two injuries were found on his person:
1. Incised wound 8 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep obliquely situated on the outer surface of left leg, 6 cms above ankle. Wound was bleeding. Area around the injury and the foot was swollen. X-ray was advised.
2. Incised wound 9 cms x 2 cms x bone deep on the right side of upper part of forehead situated transversely, 4.5 cms above the eye-brow 1.5 cm from right ear. Wound was bleeding profusely. Injury was kept under observation for operation notes. X-ray was advised Both these injuries were kept under observation. Dr. Surjit Singh Ratol, (DW1) operated upon the head injury of Harnek Singh accused arid on exploration of the skull bone under local anesthesia found both the tables of the frontal bone cut. The brain matter was found coming out in the shape of small pieces with caredospinal fluid. The injured remained admitted in the hospital till 15th July, 1987. Thus, this injury was rightly declared dangerous to life by Dr. Jagdish Raj while injury No. 1 on the left leg near the ankle was found grievous due to the fracture of the left fibula bone.
11. The occurrence took place at about 7 a.m. and all the accused were medically examined at Civil Hospital, Barnala, on the same morning from 10 a.m. to 11.25 a.m., and it is not the case of the prosecution that these accused had self suffered these injuries. Thus, it appears that all the four accused had suffered eighteen injuries in all, out of which one injury on the left leg of Jaggar Singh was grievous and on his head was dangerous to life. One grievous injury each was found on the left arm of Harnek Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused, whereas Baldev Singh deceased suffered four injuries and Harnek Singh PW only three injuries. In a way it can be well said that the complainant party had in all suffered seven injuries in this occurrence at the hands of the four accused, whereas according to Harnek Singh PW, he has been able to give eighteen injuries on the person of all the accused single-handedly. It is too difficult to swallow the version of Harnek Singh PW in this regard. Thus, there is no option but to conclude from the overall view of the circumstances of the case that the complainant party was the aggressor.
12. It appears that Harnek Singh PW, being conscious of the aggression of his party resulting in causing eighteen injuries to the four accused, had deliberately tried to exclude the participation of Sukhdev Singh and Karm Singh accused (since acquitted) and substituting Gurbachan Singh son of Jaggar Singh accused and Dharam Singh son of Harnek Singh accused for them in his statement Exhibit PH on the basis of which the Formal First Information Report was recorded. Later on it appears that some sense had dawned upon the Investigator due to the extensive injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh accused as they were already medically examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala Devi (PW 1) on the morning of occurrence. Thus, it appears that thereafter the supplementary statement of Harnek Singh PW was recorded to the effect that Sukhdev Singh and Karam Singh accused had participated in the assault and due to some confusion under the stress of medicines he had wrongly named Gurbachan Singh and Dharam Singh as two assailants in the FIR. Thus faced with this difficulty Harnek Singh PW had to swallow some version given by him in the FIR qua the participation of Gurbachan Singh and Dharam Singh in this occurrence. This circumstance clearly reveals the tendency of Harnek Singh PW in suppressing the fault of his party in this occurrence, besides to rope all the members of the accused party. Joginder Singh (PW 9) is the first cousin of Baldev Singh deceased while Puran Singh PW belongs to their party. Puran Singh PW was the attesting witness of the will executed by Kartar Singh in favour of Ram Singh, father of the deceased. This will was challenged by Santokh Singh through a Civil Suit. Puran Singh PW appeared as a witness in favour of aforesaid Ram Singh in that case also. Moreover, Puran Singh had no occasion to be present near the spot because his land does not fall on that side. Faced with this situation, he came forth with this version having purchased some maize fodder from Joginder Singh PW and was cutting the said fodder at the time of the said occurrence. He has not disclosed this fact during his statement before the police. Admittedly, Joginder Singh and Puran Singh witnesses hail from village Jaimal Singh Wala, i.e., the village of the deceased, whereas the accused hail from village Maur. Thus, obviously they are interested in the complainant party and their testimony is of no consequence in coming to the conclusion that the accused party was the aggressor, in view of the well-known dictum that men may he but circumstances seldom. Moreover, both these witnesses are prone to improve their statement at the trial to the effect that Harnek Singh PW had snatched the gandasa from Sukhdev Singh accused and gave injuries to the accused although this version was missing from their respective statements recorded by the police during investigation. On the other hand, their version, was that Baldev Singh deceased also caused injuries to the accused, but at the trial they simply denied having stated so. Thus, no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony.
13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no option but to hold that Jaggar Singh Harnek Singh appellants as well as their co-accused Sukhdev Singh arid Karam Singh (since acquitted) were well justified in causing the death of Baldev Singh and grievous injuries to Harnek Singh PW in their self-defence under the provisions of Section 100 clause firstly of the Indian Penal Code, as they apprehended danger to their lives and Jaggar Singh accused did suffer an injury on his head which was found dangerous to life besides suffering grievous injuries at the hands of the complainant party. The appellants are, therefore, ordered to be acquitted by accepting the appeal and setting aside their conviction and sentence.