Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8) found Labh Singh, Joginder Singh and Lahha Singh deceased as well as Ajit Singh (PW 19), Jarnail Singh (PW 22), Mohinder Singh (PW 27), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Bawa Singh (PW 25) and Chanan Singh (PW 26), present in the courtyard of Labh Sigh's house. Joginder Kaufman, wife of Labh Singh, and Harbans Kaur, wife of Bawa Singh, too were present there. The nine accused are then stated to have come near the compound wall of the courtyard of Labh Singh's house. The compound wall was about sixand-a-half feet high from outside and four-and-a half feet high from inside because the courtyard was at a higher level than the ground outside. At the instigation of Tarlok Singh, Atma Singh and Swarn Singh accused, it is stated, Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh accused threw one hand-grenade each into the courtyard of Labh Singh's house. Both the hand-grenades exploded in the courtyard as a result of which Labh Singh, Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh deceased and Mohinder Singh, Jarnail Singh, Ajit Singh and Harbans Singh PWs received injuries. All the nine accused then came inside the courtyard of the house of Labh Singh deceased. Karam Singh and Amarjit Singh accused were armed with spears. Tarlok Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma Singh, Chanan Singh and Swarn Singh accused had kirpans, while Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh were empty handed. Karam Singh accused on arrival delivered a spear blow in the left flank of Labh Singh deceased. Amarjit Singh accused also gave a spear blow on the right arm of Labh accused dealt a kirpan blow on the nose of Harbans Singh PW, while Chanan Singh accused gave a blow with his sheathed kirpan on the back of Mohinder Singh PW. Swarn Singh accused stepped towards Chanan Singh,. (PW 8) for attacking him with a kirpan whereupon Chanan Singh (PW 8) took up a panda from the courtyard of Labh Singh and brandished it towards Swarn Singh. One blow with that danda was given on the left shoulder of Swarn Singh accused. Those present in the courtyard also raised alarm whereupon the nine accused ran away.

Another circumstance which weighed with 'the High Court in rejecting the prosecution evidence was the nature of the injury, on the nose of Harbans Singh (PW 21). According to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the above injury had been caused with a kirpan by Joginder Singh. The High Court took the view that the said injury had been caused by a hand-grenade splinter. It was 'held that as the witnesses had deposed that the injury had been caused by a kirpan blow, the evidence of the witnesses was not trustworthy. In this respect we find that the evidence of Dr. Dhillon shows that he expressed the opinion in answer to a police query that the injury on the nose of Harbans Singh could have been caused with a kirpan. It is, no doubt, true that Dr. Dhillon also expressed the opinion that the said injury could have been caused by a missile or other object, but this fact would not necessarily show that the eye witnesses in this case have made false statements regarding the injury on the nose of Harbans Singh. In order to draw an inference about the falsity of the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this respect, it is not enough to show that the injury on the nose of Harbans Singh could have been caused either with a kirpan or with a missile, it is also necessary to rule out the Possibility of the said injury having been caused with a kirpan. The evidence of Dr. Dhillon plainly does not rule out such a possibility.

The learned judges of the High Court in rejecting the prosecution evidence have made observations critical about the magistrate, who received the copy of the first information report, as well as about Dr. Dhillon, Sub Inspector Kehar Singh and. the learned Sessions Judge. So far as the magistrate is concerned, it observed that he was an irresponsible lazy officer as he could not reach the hospital at about 1 a.m. on the night of occurrence in spite of heavy rain for recording the dying declarations of Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh. As, regards Dr. Dhillon, the criticism leveled is that he expressed an opinion in answer to the query of the investigating officer that the injury on the nose of Harding Singh could be caused with a kirpan. It was observed that the doctor had gone out of the way to please the investigating officer. The doctor was also criticized for attesting the dying declarations. Regarding Sub Inspector Kehar Singh, the High Court formed the impression that he was a domineering police officer because lie obtained opinion favorable to the prosecution from Dr. Dhillon. It was also observed that the Sub Inspector had tried to be over clever. There was enough material available, according to the High Court, which could have been made better use of by a more imaginative officer without artificially or artfully advancing the time of occurrence to day time. As regards the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court observed that the present marathon trial appeared to have strained his capacities to the maximum limits. The criticism leveled by the High Court against the above mentioned officers, in our opinion, was not warranted and was couched in language, which was rather harsh.