Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 11, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.65-DB of 1999 Ranjit Singh and others .....Appellants vs. State of Haryana ......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. PS Sullar, DAG,Haryana JUDGMENT: The appellants (Ranjit Singh, Boor Singh, Puran Singh, Balwant Singh, Inder Singh, Bagga Singh, Mala Singh, Phuman Singh, Kashmiro, Laxmi Bai and Taro Bai) challenge their conviction under section 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 506/149 IPC, for which they have been awarded life imprisonment, apart from other smaller sentences. Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 2 Case of the prosecution is that Mehar Singh, brother of accused Mala Singh, Bagga Singh and Inder Singh had purchased two and a half acres of land after the partition of ancestral land amongst the six brothers. Accused Mala Singh, Bagga Singh and Inder Singh claimed a share in the land individually purchased by Mehar Singh which he was contesting. Mala Singh, Bagga Singh and Inder Singh sowed jawar crop in the land claimed by Mehar Singh to be his individual land. Mal Singh PW6, son of Mehar Singh cut the crop ploughed in the field. Annoyed with this, accused – being three brothers of Mehar Singh, three sons of Bagga Singh namely Boor Singh, Puran Singh and Ranjit Singh, two sons of Mala Singh, namely Tara Singh and Balwant Singh, one son of Inder Singh, namely Phuman Singh, Kashmiro, wife of Balwant Singh and Laxmi Bai, wife of Jagir Singh, assaulted the complainant side on 21.9.1996 at 12 noon with their weapons, resulting in the death of Mahendro, wife of Mal Singh.The role attributed to the said accused is as under:- (i)Pooran Singh fired two shots from country made pistol in the air. (ii)Mala Singh raised 'lalkara' that the complainant party be taught a lesson for not partitioning the land and finish them. Mala Singh also gave 'pharsa' blow on the head of the deceased. Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 3 (iii)Balwant Singh fired upon the deceased on her left cheek and on left eye (according to medical evidence i.e. evidence of PW3 Dr. P.S.Parihar, possibility of Injury No.2 on left cheek was by blunt weapon and was simple). (iv)Phuman Singh gave 'lathi' blow to the deceased on her left cheek. (v)Kashmiro gave 'lathi' blow on her right hand wrist. The deceased fell down. Mal Singh PW6 went to his house and returned with his licenced SBBL Gun and fired three shots in self defence, on which the accused went away with their respective weapons. In the process, Mahendro injured died, while being taken to the hospital, while Mehar Singh, Palo Devi, wife of Dara Singh, brother of Mal Singh received injuries. Mal Singh proceeded to lodge FIR and met SI Prem Singh PW5 on the way, who recorded his statement at 4.30 PM, on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW5 SI Prem Singh went to the place where the dead body was lying and conducted proceedings under section 174 Cr.PC and sent the dead body for post mortem. He then went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan and lifted blood stained earth and two empty cartridges. He also lifted wads from the place of occurrence. On receiving a message from the hospital, Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 4 he went to the hospital and recorded the statements of Palo Devi and Mehar Singh. He also recorded statement of Mala Singh accused who had received injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Further investigation was conducted by SI Sat Narain PW12, who arrested the accused and took into possession belongings of the deceased after post mortem, 'lathi' from Kashmiro Bai and Laxmi Bai, sword from Boor Singh, 'Pharsa' from Bagga Singh and Inder Singh, lathi from Phuman Singh, country made pistol from Puran Singh and after investigation, the accused were challaned. PW3 Dr. P.S.Parihar conducted post mortem examination and found following injuries on the deceased:- “1. Incised wound 13 cm x 5 cm maximum width and 5 cm deep on the parietal region of head. Wound was directed anterio posteral and downwards. Edges of wounds were clean cut and involving skin scalp skull bone underline meninges and brain. Left end of wound was 11 cm., from outer angle of left eye and right end of wound was 13 cm from outer angle of right eye. Tailing of right end of wound was present. Liquid and clotted blood was present in cranial cavity. 2.lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm with swelling around wound on left side of cheek. Wound was 4 cm., below and laterally to outer angle of left eye. Clotted blood was present in the wound. Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 5 3.Right wrist was deformed with swelling 5 cm x 4 cm size on dorsum of right wrist on dissection fracture disclocation of right radius was seen. Other organs were healthy. 2 x-ray films duly signed by me handed over to the police. X-ray face and X-ray skull, AP and lateral view.” The cause of death was head injury as described. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW4 Dr. Madhu Lata Paul examined Palo and found following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound about 2 cm x 1 cm over the right side of forehead near the hair line, skin deep. No history of unconsciousness or vomiting. Fresh bleeding started on cleaning the wound. Advised x-ray skull. AP lateral. 2. Complain of pain over the right shoulder. Movements neither restricted nor painful. Injury No.1 was kept under observation, whereas injury No.2 was simple in nature, caused by blunt weapons both. Injuries were caused within duration 0of 2 to 4 hours.” She also examined Mehar Singh and found following injuries:- “1. A cut over the right external ear. Lacerated wound about 2 cm x 1 cm, 3 superficial scratches were also present. 2.An incised wound transversely placed over posterir part of right parietal region, about Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 6 1”1/2 cm. Advised x-ray skull, AP and lateral. 3.The bruise, pinkish in colour, vertically placed about 4” x 1” over left scapula. 4.Another pinkish bruise, transversely palced from right lumber region to lumber spines and left lumber region about 6”x1”.” The prosecution also examined PW1 Constable Raj Singh, PW8 Constable Rajender Singh and PW14 HC Ranbir, who were formal witnesses, PW6 Mal Singh, PW7 Kehar Singh and PW9 Dara Singh, who are the eye witnesses, PW10 Makhan Singh and PW11 Kartar Singh, who are witnesses to the recovery. However, the prosecution gave up Mehar Singh and Palo Devi, injured. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that on 21.9.1996 at 9 AM, accused Ranjit had gone to take a look at the jawar crop and found that Dara Singh, Makhan Singh, Jagir Singh, Kehar Singh, Mehar Singh, Kashmira Singh, Palo Bai, Prem Singh and Mahendro Bai were cutting their jawar crop. He asked them not to do so. Mal Singh caught hold of Ranjit Singh and abused and threatened him. Inder Singh, accused was returning from the market and informed the members of the family, on which Mala Singh and Taro Bai came there. Mehar Singh caused injuries on the head of Inder Singh by 'Ballam'. Dara Singh fired at Laxmi Bai. Palo Bai and Mahendro Bai attacked Balwant with 'Pharsa' Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 7 and sword. Mahendro Bai tried to cause injuries to Ranjit Singh but her own 'Pharsa' hit her. Mal Singh gave fire arm injuries to Balwant Singh. Ranjit Singh filed a criminal case. They examined DW1 Dr. Ashok Gupta and Dr. V.K.Aggarwal DW2 from B.K.Hospital, Faridabad. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court accepted the version of the prosecution and rejected the version of the defence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are injuries on the person of Mala Singh, Taro Bai, Ranjit Singh, and Balwant Singh accused, who were examined by DW1 Dr. Ashok Gupta, which are as under:- Injuries on Mala Singh 1.Multiple punctured wound of sizes 0.3 x 0.3 cm to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on both gluteal regions on back in lumbosacral region and back of left side. Collar of abrasion was present in each wound. This injury was advised x-ray. 2.Punctured wound on posterior aspect of left forearm 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm collar of abrasion was present. 3.Radish abrasion with collar of abrasion on front of left hand.” Injuries on Taro Bai Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 8 “Multiple punctured wound of size 0.3 cm to 0.5 x 0.5 cm on front and midial aspect of both thigh some wound are of oval shape. Size 0.5 x 0.3 cm. Collar of abrasion was present on each wound. This injury was advised x-ray.” Injuries on Ranjit “1. Lacerated wound 4.0 x 0.5 cm skin deep on left paruieto ocipital region of scalp. Bleeding was there. 2. Complaining of pain on left thigh. Tenderness was there.” Injuries on Balwant “1. Two punctured wound of size 0.3 x 0.3 cm each on left side of front of chest, the one wound is 4.0 cm above and to the left of left nipple and other wound is 6.0 cm below and middial to left nipple. Collar of abrasion was present. This injury was advised x-ray. 2. Two punctured wound of size 0.3 x 0.3 cm each with collar of abrasion of lateral aspect of left thigh.” Learned counsel submitted that fire arm injuries attributed to Balwant Singh on the person of the deceased have not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Palo Bai and Mehar Singh alleged to have been injured have not been examined. Injury attributed to Bagga Singh on the head of Palo Bai was not found by the doctor. Injury attributed to Taro Bai was also not found by the doctor. Injuries attributed to Taro Bai and Laxmi to Mehar Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 9 Singh were not proved. Similarly, role attributed to Inder Singh, Boor Singh and Ranjit Singh qua Mehar Singh has not been proved. Puran Singh was said to have fired two shots in the air. If role attributed to Mala Singh in causing fatal injury to Mahendro by the deceased and role attributed to Phuman Singh in causing injury to the deceased and to Phuman and Kashmiro in causing injury with blunt weapon to the deceased is to be accepted, only the said three persons could be convicted. Except Mala Singh, Phuman Singh and Kashmiro, no other accused was proved to have caused any injury to Mahendro. They were named by way of exaggeration. He submitted that when large number of accused are named, evidence requires corroboration and prosecution version could not be accepted mechanically. We find merit in the contention raised. As many as 11 accused have been named and role of causing injuries by three accused is corroborated by medical evidence. Two injured witnesses have not been produced. Four accused have also received injuries. From the pattern of injuries caused, we are of the view that version of eye witnesses stands established against Mala Singh, Phuman Singh and Kashmiro but presence and involvement of other accused is not free from doubt. The occurrence is not disputed even by the accused. The accused party has to be held to Crl.A.No.65-DB of 1999 10 be aggressor. The land belonged to the complainant party. Injuries received by the accused stand explained. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Mala Singh, Phuman Singh and Kashmiro, who have participated, with common intention, to cause the death of Mohindro. Their conviction and sentence are upheld. Their appeal is dismissed. Accused Inder Singh, Bagga Singh, Boor Singh, Balwant Singh, Puran Singh, Ranjit Singh, Laxmi Bai and Taro Bai are entitled to benefit of doubt. Their appeal is accepted and they are acquitted. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 11, 2008 (S.D.Anand) gs Judge