Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. Date of Decision : 4.10.2010. Gurbakhshish ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Pooja Chopra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. AG Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated April 8th, 2002 and order of sentence dated April 9th, 2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 302, 308 and 452 IPC and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default U/S 302 IPC Imprisonment for life `15,000/- RI for 1 year u/S308 IPC RI for 5 years `10,000/- RI for 6 months 452 IPC RI for 5 years `10,000/- RI for 6 months All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Gurcharan Singh and Dhian Singh who were also sent up for trial along with the appellant were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. 3. On October 25th, 1999 at about 7.30 PM, Amrik Singh (deceased) was sitting in the courtyard of his house. Sukhdev Singh brother of deceased (PW-5) was sitting inside the house. Manjit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha (PW-7) was cooking meal. Meanwhile, Gurbakshish Singh-appellant armed with Dang Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. 2 accompanied by Gurcharan Singh and Dhian Singh came and exhorted Amrik Singh that he should teach him a lesson for stopping him from curing the wall of his newly constructed house. Gurbakshish Singh caused dang blows on the head of the deceased. He fell down and became unconscious. Sukhdev Singh (PW-5) and his wife Manjit Kaur (PW-7) tried to intervene but Gurbakshish Singh also caused a dang blow on the head of Sukhdev Singh. An alarm was raised. The accused fled away from the spot. 4. The deceased and Sukhdev Singh-injured were taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala by their brothers Gurdip Singh and Gurmukh Singh. The Medical Officer informed the Police on telephone about the admission of injured persons in the hospital. Upon this, Sakatar Singh (PW-10) went there and moved application (Exhibit PD) to seek opinion as to whether the injured were fit to make statements or not. Dr. Puneet Gupta (PW-3) opined that Amrik Singh was not fit to make statement vide Exhibit PD/1 and declared Suhdev Singh fit to make statement vide opinion (Exhibit PE/1). Sakatar Singh recorded his statement (Exhibit PL). He appended his endorsement (Exhibit PL/1). First Information Report (Exhibit PL/2) was registered under Section 308, 323 and 452 IPC. 5. On October 27th, 1999 Amrik Singh succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Investigator reached there and prepared inquest report (Exhibit PR). Thereafter, the FIR was converted into one Section 302 IPC. 6. On December 15th, 1999 the appellant was produced before the Police by Davinder Singh. He was arrested and interrogated. During interrogation, he made disclosure statement (Exhibit PS) which lead to the recovery of dang which was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PT). 7. The accused was charged under Sections 302, 308, 323, 325 and 452 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. At the trial, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Out of them, medical evidence has been given by Doctors Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. 3 Vijay Mahajan (PW-1), Harish Tuli (PW-2), Punit Gupta (PW-3), Harminder Singh (PW-4) and Sanjay Gupta (PW-9/A) and the ocular version was rendered by Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha-injured (PW-5) and his wife Manjit Kaur (PW-7). 9. Learned counsel on either side have been heard and the file has been perused. 10. Dr. Harminder Singh (PW-4) medically examined Amrik Singh and Sukhdev Singh. He found following injuries on their person:- Amrik Singh 1. Bleeding from the left ear was present. Advised x-ray under Surgeon's observation. 2. A swelling measuring 6 cm x 4 cm was present on the forehead just above the right eye brow. Advised x-ray under Surgeon observation. The time elapsed between death and post-mortem examination was 6 hours. Sukhdev Singh 1. A lacerated wound measuring 5 cm x 1 cm was present on the scalp obliquely placed with fresh bleeding situated 5 cm from the upper margin of right pinna and 7 cm from the right eye brow. Advised x-ray under Surgeon's observation. 2. Complaint of pain on the back of right side over the sub scapular region. Advised x-ray under Surgeon's observation. The autopsy on the dead body of Amrik Singh was conducted by Dr. Harish Tuli (PW-2) on October 27th, 1999 who observed as under:- 1. 6 cm x 4 cm contusion was present on the right side of forehead just above right eye brows. Multiple fractures of the bones underneath were present. 2. 2 cm x 1 cm contusion was present on the left Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. 4 side of skull. Bones underneath fracture were found. Intra-cranial hemorrhage was present. He opined that Amrik Singh died on account of head injury. He also clarified that the aforesaid injuries were as a result of two blows. 11. Dr. Vijay Mahajan (PW-1) conducted x-ray examination of Sukhdev Singh and found fracture of left temporopartial bones. He also proved the x-ray examination report (Exhibit PA). Dr. Sanjay Gupta (PW-9/A) deposed that Sukhdev Singh was discharged on November 3rd, 1999 on his request. 12. Sukhdev Singh (PW-5) and his wife Manjit Kaur (PW-7) have rendered eye witness account as detailed in paragraph no.2 while narrating the facts. Both of them have spoken in unison that on the ill-starred day, that is, October 25th, 1999 at about 7 AM, the appellant was curing the wall of his newly constructed house and the water thereof was falling on the chapatis which Paramjit Kaur was preparing. Amrik Singh asked the appellant that he should put the water slowly so that it may not fall on the chapatis. Due to this, in the evening at about 7.30 PM, Gurbakhshish Singh armed with dang entered the house of the deceased and caused injuries to him and Sukhdev Singh. They have given an account of the occurrence with consistency. The presence of these two witnesses cannot be doubted. Their presence in the house was natural. Sukhdev Singh also received a serious injury in this occurrence detailed in preceding paragraph of this judgment. That makes him a stamp witness whose testimony cannot be doubted or taken lightly. The lodging of FIR with promptitude and mentioning therein the name of the appellant and the rest of the incriminating circumstances that have been deposed to at the trial by the witnesses, lends guarantee to the truthfulness of the version deposed to by them. The medical evidence also lends necessary assurance to the conclusion that it was the appellant who perpetrated the crime. 13. In upshot, the evidence on record clearly establishes the commission of the offence by the appellant. Criminal Appeal No.383-DB of 2002. 5 Therefore, the conviction and the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Judge do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 15. The appellant, was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 4.10.2010. SN