Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Lakhvinder Singh and others APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Haryana RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE JUSTICE (MRS.) DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional A.G. Haryana. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 7.2.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he convicted Lakhvinder Singh, Gurudutt Singh, Prem Singh, Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh all sons of Surain Singh under Sections 148,302/149,326/149,323/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each; or to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 326 I.P.C.; or to undergo RI for one year under Section 324 I.P.C.; or to undergo RI for one year under Section 148 I.P.C.; to undergo RI for six months under Section 323 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -2- imposed under Section 302 I.P.C., appellants were directed to undergo further RI for six months and in case of non-payment of fine under Section 326 I.P.C., all the appellants were directed to further undergo RI for three months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PZ of Gurnam Singh son of Teja Singh. Gurnam Singh stated that he is a resident of Dhani Assa Singh Rania and is a student of Ist year in National College, Sirsa. On 6.4.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. he along with his father Teja Singh, uncle Jagir Singh and Jit Singh son of Puran Singh, all residents of his village were standing in the street in front of their uncle's house and were talking to each other. In the meantime, Lakhvinder Singh, Gurudutt Singh, Prem Singh, Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh all sons of Surain Singh residents of their village armed with Kappa, Gandasa, Gandasi and Lathis came there. They raised a lalkara that they (complainant party) should be taught a lesson for not giving the rope made of Parali (paddy straw). Thereafter Lakhvinder Singh gave a Kappa blow on the head of Teja Singh. Prem Singh gave a Gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Teja Singh. Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh gave Lathi blows with their respective weapons on the head of Teja Singh. Gurdutt Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the forehead of Gurnam Singh. Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh gave injuries with their Lathis to Jagir Singh. Jit Singh tried to intervene, but he was also given injuries with a Gandasi by Prem Singh and Gurudutt Singh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Jit Singh and Gurnam Singh's uncle saw the occurrence. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 7.4.1998 at 10.15 a.m. and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate, Sirsa at 2 p.m. on the same day. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.Viresh Bhushan PW-1, Dr.B.L.Gupta PW-2, Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3, Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -3- Subhash Chander PW-4, Constable Rameshwar Dass PW-5, Gurnam Singh PW-6, Jit Singh PW-7, Satnam Singh PW-8, Malkiat Singh PW-9, Constable Krishan Kumar PW-10, SI Jai Kishan PW-11, Constable Ram Kumar PW-12 and ASI Hukam Chand PW-13. Dr.V.K.Gupta DW-1 was examined in defence. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is an unexplained delay of 18 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place on 6.4.1998 at 8.30 P.M. Injured Gurnam Singh PW-6 and Teja Singh reached the Civil Hospital, Sirsa on 7.4.1998 at 12.10 a.m. Gurnam Singh PW-6 was examined by Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3 who stated in his report that Gurnam Singh PW-6 was conscious, well oriented and he signed on the medico-legal report Ex.PQ. He sent Ruqa Ex.PR to Police Station, Sirsa. Thereafter a wireless message Ex.PNN was sent to Police Station Rania. Though the police came to know of the occurrence in the night at about 2 a.m. on 7.4.1998, but the F.I.R. Ex.PV was recorded on 7.4.1998 at 10.15 a.m. Further, the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 2 p.m. Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 has stated in his testimony that he reached the hospital at 2.40 a.m. and got the opinion of the doctor Ex.PS/1, who stated that Gurnam Singh PW-6 was not fit to make a statement. The fitness certificate of Gurnam Singh to give statement was taken at 7.50 a.m. and thereafter the statement of Gurnam Singh Ex.PZ was recorded. Apart from this witness, the other eye-witness to the occurrence Jit Singh PW-7 and Jagir Singh who has not been examined, their statements were recorded at a later date. The Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 was duty bound to record the statements of the other witnesses, especially when he had come to know about they also being injured, so that the F.I.R. could come into existence without any delay. This time in fact, was being utilised for consultations and confabulations to falsely implicate the appellants. Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -4- The motive for the commission of the offence is very frivolous. It has been stated that the appellants wanted to take a rope from the complainant party which they refused to give. Gurnam Singh PW-6 in his testimony before the Court has not spelt out any motive for the commission of the offence. In fact, the actual motive has come out in the statement of appellant Lakhvinder Singh. The trouble between both the parties was a water course which was flowing through the fields of appellants Lakhvinder Singh and his brothers. Appellants did not raise any lalkara against Teja Singh before attacking the complainant party. Apart from the alleged motive of demand of rope, there is no previous enmity between the complainant party. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of appellants Lakhvinder Singh, Gurudutt Singh and Prem Singh. In fact, it is a case of a sudden fight over a trivial matter, where both the parties suffered injuries. At the most, the case of the appellants falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has argued that injuries on the person of deceased Teja Singh which are on the head region show that appellants were bent upon giving such injuries to Teja Singh so as to extinguish his life. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. First of all, the complainant party had to look after Teja Singh, Gurnam Singh PW-6, Jit Singh PW-7 and Jagir Singh as all of them were injured. They went to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Then they went to a hospital in Hissar. In fact, there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The motive for the commission of offence is very strong. The rope which the appellants wanted to take, was a rope which the complainant had made of their own and they wanted to take it forcibly. The case of the appellants does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -5- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Both the parties are related to each other. Pedigree table is as under :- Surain Singh | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Khushia Bai(sister) Lakhvinder Singh, Gurudutt Singh, Prem Singh, Balbir Singh, Mithu Singh(sons) | ------------------------------------------------------- Jagir Singh injured Teja Singh(deceased) (not examined) | Gurnam Singh(PW-6) Appellants Lakhvinder Singh and Gurudutt Singh sons of Surain Singh were examined by Dr.B.L.Gupta PW-2 on 6.4.1998 at 11.10 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. respectively. The injury on the person of appellant Lakhvinder Singh as per the opinion given by Dr.B.L.Gupta PW-2 was simple in nature and was caused by a blunt weapon. The medico-legal report of Lakhvinder Singh is Ex.DA. Appellant Gurudutt Singh had four injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was an incised wound on the right side of his occipital region. Injury No.1 was declared grievous. Ex.DB is the medico-legal report of Gurudutt Singh. Jagir Singh and Jit Singh PW-7 were examined by Dr.B.L.Gupta PW-2 on 7.4.1998 at 6/6.30 p.m. Jagir Singh had three contusions and one lacerated wound on the right side of his forehead and Jit Singh PW-7 had two incised wounds both caused by sharp-edged weapons. The medico-legal reports of Jagir Singh and Jit Singh PW-7 are Exhibits PD and PE respectively. Injury No.1 on the person of Jit Singh PW-7 was declared grievous in nature. Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3 medico-legally examined Teja Singh on 7.4.1998 at 00.10 hours and found the following injuries on his person :- (1) There was swelling on left parieto temporal region of skull 8 cm x 6 cm in size and it was reddish in colour. X-ray was advised. Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -6- (2) Swelling on right parieto temporal region of skull. Size 8 cm x 6 cm with reddish discolouration. X-ray advised. (3) There was swelling on the whole of the frontal region of the skull with bluish discolouration of bilateral eye lids. Sub-conjuetical haemorrhage was present bilaterally. X-ray was advised. (4) Incised wound 1 cm x linear on frontal region of the skull. 2.5 cm to right of mid line and 8 cm. from right eye-brow. Fresh bleeding was present and X-ray was advised. Injuries No.1 to 3 on the person of Teja Singh deceased were with blunt weapon and injury No.4 was with sharp-edged weapon. Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3 also medico-legally examined Gurnam Singh PW-6 and found two injuries on his person. Injury No.1 being an incised wound on the forehead region of the scalp. His medico-legal report is Ex.PQ. The doctor has further opined that on the police request Ex.PS, he declared Gurnam Singh PW-6 unfit to make a statement. On 7.4.1998 at 7.15 a.m. vide his opinion Ex.PS/2, he declared Gurnam Singh PW-6 fit to make a statement. It is thereafter the statement of Gurnam Singh was recorded on the basis of which the F.I.R. Ex.PV came into existence. Though Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3 has opined that Gurnam Singh PW-6 on reaching the hospital was conscious and well oriented and he signed on the medico-legal report, but Dr.Y.K.Chaudhary PW-3 clearly opined that Gurnam Singh PW-6 was not in a fit state of mind to make a statement and therefore, he declared him unfit to make a statement. From the medical evidence of both the parties i.e. appellants and complainant party, it is clear that a fight took place between both the parties and in that fight, both the parties received injuries. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of appellants Lakhvinder Singh and Gurudutt Singh who do not have superficial injuries, but the injuries on their person are grievous in nature and with sharp-edged weapon. They were examined within three hours of Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -7- the occurrence, while the complainant party was examined after 14 hours of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 obtained the opinion of the doctor Ex.PS/1 on 7.4.1998 whereby the doctor declared Gurnam Singh unfit to make a statement. Vide opinion Ex.PS/2 given by the attending doctor on 7.4.1998 at 7.50 a.m., he was declared fit to make a statement. Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 had reached the General Hospital, Sirsa, while the other two witnesses to the occurrence i.e. Jit Singh PW-7 and Jagir Singh were at the hospital in Rania. The distance between Sirsa and Rania being 30 kms. Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 rightly stayed in the General Hospital, Sirsa to record the statement of Gurnam Singh as and when he was declared fit to make a statement. We are of the considered opinion that there is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Ex.PV. The motive for the commission of the offence does not seem to be what has been propounded by the prosecution i.e. the borrowing of a rope made of Parali (paddy straw) by the appellants from the complainant party. The motive seems to be the one as suggested to Gurnam Singh PW-6 by the defence counsel, that a water course passed through the land of the appellants which further watered the fields of the complainant party. This water used to break and spoil the crop of the appellants. Panchayat had met and this water course had been demolished, but it was later on re- constructed. It has further been suggested though denied by Gurnam Singh PW-6 that on the day of occurrence appellants Gurudutt Singh and Lakhvinder Singh had come to the house of deceased Teja Singh. They suggested to deceased Teja Singh for construction of an alternative water course as the existing water course damaged their crops. Further, it was suggested that hot words were exchanged between the complainant party and appellants Gurudutt Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -8- Singh and Lakhvinder Singh and thereafter both the parties started throwing brick bats at each other, which were lying on the side of the street. Further, it was suggested that one brickbat hit Teja Singh who got fatally injured. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Lakhvinder Singh has stated as under :- “I am innocent. As a matter of fact, on the day of occurrence I along with Gurdit Singh went to the house of Teja Singh (now deceased) just to request him for an alternative water course from our land and there Jeet Singh son of Puran Singh, Gurnam Singh complainant and Jagir Singh PWs were present. They started exchanging hot wards with us and in order to pacify both the parties Teja Singh deceased intervened but before that both the parties exchanged brickbats and when Teja Singh came between both the parties, he received brickbat thrown by the complainant party and we have been falsely implicated in the case.” The motive for the commission of the offence was a dispute over the water course between both the parties. The Investigating Officer ASI Hukam Chand PW-13 in his testimony before the Court has stated, that he arrested appellants Lakhvinder Singh, Gurudutt Singh and Prem Singh on 13.4.1998. On the basis of their disclosure statements Exs.PCC, PDD and PEE respectively, Kappa Ex.P3, Gandasa Ex.P4 and Gandasi Ex.P5 respectively were recovered. On the disclosure statement of appellants Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh, Lathis Exs.P1 and P2 were recovered. He has further stated that he saw some bricks scattered in the street just near the wall. If we go through the site plan Ex.PFF, houses of the appellants and the complainant party are very close to each other. The prosecution is suppressing the genesis of the occurrence. In fact, the occurrence had taken place outside in the street where both the parties quarreled and received injuries. Both the parties Criminal Appeal No.152-DB of 2000 -9- being armed gave injuries to each other. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly argued that case of the appellants falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Appellants Lakhvinder Singh, Gurdutt Singh and Prem Singh are sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years. Appellants Balbir Singh and Mithu Singh who were armed with Lathis are sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years. Convictions and sentences of the appellants under Sections 323,324,326 and 148 I.P.C. shall remain intact, as awarded by the learned trial Court. If the appellants have not undergone their sentences, they are directed to surrender before the C.J.M., Sirsa to undergo their remaining part of sentence. If in custody, the appellants be set free forthwith, if they have completed their sentences imposed on them. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) April 21, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO