Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Vide this judgment Criminal appeal Nos. 209-DB, 568-DBA of 1998 and Criminal Revision No. 654 of 1998 would be disposed of as the same have arisen out of judgment dated 26.3.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of complainant/injured Amrik Singh. About nine months prior to the occurrence, Sukhchain Singh, brother of complainant was given injuries by Surain Singh and his brother. A case was registered against them at Police Station Sadar Faridkot. Surain Singh, Darshan Singh, Jhanda Singh and Pala Singh were arrested and were sent up for trial. A month before the occurrence, complainant party and accused had received injuries in a quarrel and a case was registered against them at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. All of them were arrested and sent up for trial. Apart from this, both the parties were also facing proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Faridkot on 17.2.1995. Complainant along with his brothers Raj Singh, Harbans Singh, Sukchain Singh and father Mander Singh and cousin brother Gursewak Singh, maternal uncles-Santa Singh and Banta Singh and cousin brother Satnam Singh had come to attend the Court proceedings in a case under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Bhajan Singh, relative of the complainant, had also come to the Court to meet them. Surain Singh, Jasmail Singh, Darshan Singh, Jhanda Singh, Pala Singh and Boota Singh had come to attend the Court proceedings from the opposite side. At about 11.00 a.m., both the parties were waiting for their case in the compound of the Court. Surain Singh asked Bhajan Singh as to what he was doing there and what was the purpose of his visit on the date of hearing. On this, both of them started exchanging hot words and abuses. Surain Singh, who was `amritdhari' Sikh, took out his sirisahib (small kirpan) which he was wearing around his neck and gave 3/4 blows on the person of Bhajan Singh which hit him below the left side of his chest. Complainant party came forward to separate them. Surain Singh gave a `kirpan' blow from the sharp side on the person of Mander Singh which hit him on his waist. Darshan Singh, who had concealed his `kirpan', took out the same and gave blows with it on the person of Santa Singh. Surain Singh gave a blow on the left shoulder of the complainant with his `kirpan' and complainant retreated. Surain Singh then gave two `kirpan' blows on the person of Sukhchain Singh which hit him on his right flank. Then, Surain Singh gave two `kirpan' blows on the right flank of Harbans Singh. Boota Singh kept on instigating his son that none of the complainant party should escape alive. Jasmail Singh held Raj Singh, whereas, Darshan Singh gave a `kirpan' blow on his right flank and right hip joint. Pal Singh and Jhanda Singh caught hold of Gursewak Singh and Darshan Singh gave a `kirpan' blow on his left flank. Jhanda Singh, Pal Singh and Jasmail Singh caught hold of Santa Singh and Harbans Singh from their long hair and supported them with their arms and helped Surain Singh and Darshan Singh in causing injuries to them. They raised alarm and all the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons after causing injuries to the complainant party with intention to kill them.

Complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW1, has deposed as per contents of FIR.

PW2, Sukchain Singh and PW3 Raj Singh have corroborated their statements with regard to the manner of occurrence.

This is a case where the parties have a history of criminal cases against each other. Even on the day of occurrence, parties had come to the Court to attend proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.PC. Parties were waiting in the Court compound when the occurrence took place resulting in two murders, attempt to murder and injuries to, as many as, six persons from the complainant side. Injuries were also suffered by some of the accused.

As per the prosecution case, about nine months prior to the occurrence in question, Sukchain Singh, brother of the complainant was inflicted injuries by Surain Singh and his brothers. Surain Singh, Banta Singh, Darshan Singh and Pal Singh were arrested and were sent up for trial in FIR No, 36 dated 23.5.1994 registered at Police Station Sadar under Sections 324 IPC. Thereafter, a month later, both the parties again suffered injuries in a fight and a case was registered against Santa Singh, Banta Singh complainant party beaing FIR No. 52 dated 27.6.1994 under Sections 326,325,324,323,148,149 IPC and they were arrested and were sent up for trial. Parties were also facing proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.PC. As per DW4, Pawan Kumar, both the parties were convicted in the FIRs registered against them in hurt cases and appeals were pending. Hence, the parties were already involved in criminal cases against each other. On the day of occurrence in question, Surain Singh, accused has taken up the plea of self-defence whereas Darshan Singh accused took up the plea of alibi. In fact,presence of all the accused is admitted at the spot except accused Darshan Singh.

We are,however, unable to agree with Sh.R.S.Cheema, learned Senior Advocte as all the materials on record fail to justify the absence of the accused Darshan Singh at the spot. The said accused admittedly had to appear before the Court of the District Magistrate, Faridkot in connection with proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.PC. His presence had not been exempted by the Court for the said date. Mere filing of an application for exemption, if any, as pleaded by Darshan Singh was not sufficient. However, no such application has been proved on record. Darshan Singh accused has been taking different stands to suit himself. On the one hand, he has taken the plea that he had got his leave sanctioned for 17.2.1995 on 16.2.1995. This appears to be probable as he had to attend the Court proceedings on 17.2.1995. The other plea taken by him is that he attended School for the first half on 17.2.1995, despite taking leave and applied for second half day leave. It is not understandable as to why he applied for leave for the second half when he had to attend the Court proceedings in the morning. In case Darshan Singh had moved an application for exemption of his personal appearance in the Court, then there was no occasion for him to apply for leave for the second half. It is not the case of accused Darshan Singh that the Court was to be held after lunch.