Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. There was incised wound 15 cm x 2 cm on the right side of head and over the right ear, skull was fractured, brain was injured and clotted blood was present in skull cavity.
8. There was incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the mouth, cutting both the lips and mandible.
9. Incised wound 2 ½ cm x 1 cm was present on the right side of forehead."

In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries No.4 to 9 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury on the abdomen was with the blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage shock, resulting from the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On the same date at about 4.00 p.m., he also conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Bikramjit Singh aged 22 years and noticed the following injuries on his body :

11. There was incised wound on the back of left elbow underneath bone was cut. Pallets were removed from the Liver."

In his opinion, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused with fire-arm whereas injuries No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused with sharp edged weapon and injury No.10 was caused with blunt weapon. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock haemorrhage, resulting from injuries to the brain. FACTS OF CROSS-VERSION :

Proceedings of cross-version were initiated on the basis of the statement of Mohinder Singh (Ex.P1) recorded by SI Bhag Singh in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala at 2.00 p.m. on 4.5.2001. In the said statement he stated that on the intervening night of 2/3.5.2001, he was sleeping along with his wife Harbans Kaur on the roof of his house. At about 3.00 a.m., they heard a noise of working of the harvest combine machine in his fields. He and his wife went to the fields on foot from their house. He saw that the land which was taken by him on lease from the Gram Panchayat, in which the wheat crop was sown by him, was being harvested by Amrik Singh, Zora Singh, Ranjit Singh sons of Gurdial Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh, sons of Amrik Singh and Gurdial Singh, accompanied by four/five other persons, with the help of combine. It was further stated that since he was in possession of the said land and crop was sown by him, he and his wife went to the fields to restrain the driver of the combine and asked why they were harvesting their crop. In the meantime, Amrik Singh, who was having a licensed gun, fired on him with the intention to kill him which hit on his left leg. When his wife Harbans Kaur raised voice "Mardita Mardita", then Shavinderjit Singh gave a gun shot blow which hit on the left upper arm of his wife. Then Gurdial Singh and his sons Zora Singh and Ranjit Singh raised lalkara that they be not allowed to go scot-free. In the meantime, he fell down on the ground and became unconscious and was got admitted in the hospital. Amrik Singh and his family members forcibly harvested his crop in connivance with each other, therefore, action be taken against them.
ARGUMENTS :
Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the instant case is a case of massive exaggeration. The complainant while intimating the prosecution version has falsely implicated thirty-one persons of the village, including its Sarpanch. The complainant and the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence have attributed nine fire-arms to nine accused and various other weapons to the other accused, though during the investigation only three fire-arms and few other arms, i.e., dang, gandasa and toka were recovered vide recovery memos Ex.P39, Ex.P45, Ex.P9 and Ex.P30. It was further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses levelled omnibus allegations against the accused. No specific role to each of the accused was pointed out. It is further argued that for the complainant's side, deceased Amrik Singh received three fire-arm injuries and six other injuries out of which one was from sharp-edged weapon and five were from blunt weapon, whereas deceased Vikramjit Singh got four fire-arm injuries and seven other injuries out of which six were from sharp-edged weapon and one was from blunt weapon. The other two witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11) and Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) received six and five injuries, respectively, from the sharp-edged and blunt weapons. They did not receive any fire-arm injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution version is a concocted version in which thirty-one persons have been falsely implicated taking benefit of the delay in registration of the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident had taken place at 3.00 a.m. on 3.5.2001 whereas the statement of PW11-Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and formal FIR was registered at 10.00 a.m. He submitted that as per the statement of PW13-Ramandeep Singh, the police came at the occurrence at 8.00 a.m., but the statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded at 9.40 a.m. and during this period the prosecution version was concocted. Learned counsel further submitted that the possession of the land in question was with Mohinder Singh as a lessee of the Gram Panchayat and he had sown the wheat crop, and Gurdial Singh and others were not legally justified to cut the crop from the land in question. It is further argued that all the three alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Ranjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh and Ramandeep Singh are not trustworthy as they belong to one family. PW12-

Learned counsel further submitted that the three accused, namely, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Zora Singh have been wrongly convicted under Section 307 IPC. Actually, they did not commit any offence.

DECISION IN THE MAIN CASE:

From the medical evidence available on the record, it has been proved that two persons, namely, Amrik Singh son of Gurdial Singh and Vikramjit Singh had died on 3.5.2001 due to haemorrhage shock, resulting from gun shot and other injuries suffered by them. During post-mortem, nine injuries were found on the body of deceased Amrik Singh, out of which, injuries No.1 to 3 were caused with fire arm whereas injuries No.4 to 9 by sharp edged and blunt weapons. On the body of deceased Vikramjit Singh, 11 injuries were found, out of which, injuries No.1 to 4 were caused with fire arm whereas injuries No.5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No.10 was caused by blunt weapon. Two persons, namely, Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh were also medico-legally examined on 3.5.2001 at 5.30 a.m. by Dr. Harminder Singh (PW3) and he found six injuries which were declared simple in nature on the person of Ranjit Singh and five injuries, which were declared simple in nature on the person of Shavinderjit Singh. None of the injuries of these two injured was from fire arms. The injuries on their bodies were either by sharp edged or blunt weapon. It has also been proved that on the same date at 5.30 a.m., Dr.Gian Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala medico-legally examined Mohinder Singh (accused) and Harbans Kaur (accused) and on their person two gun shot injuries each were found. As per the opinion of the doctor, the probable time of those injuries was within six hours.Thus, it is clear that two persons from the complainant's side and two persons from accused side were admitted in the hospital in injured condition at the same time and were medico-legally examined, and the post mortem examination of two dead persons was conducted on that date and as per the opinion of the doctor, they had received injuries by fire arm, sharp edged and blunt weapons.