Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 Date of decision : 6.8.2008 Tarlok Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Mr. B.S. Sra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. Appellant Tarlok Singh was convicted by the learned Trial Judge for an offence under Section 307 and 324 IPC. For the former offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. For the latter offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The proceedings against (Joginder Singh, brother of appellant, were dropped as he died during the trial). The prosecution allegations were as under:- First informant/injured Mohinder Singh (PW-3) is real brother of the appellant Tarlok Singh, Sohan Singh and (deceased accused Joginder Singh being the other two brothers- thereby making a total tally of four). They had partitioned all their property, Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -2- **** with the exception of a Bara adjoining the house of Tarlok Singh. A panchayat to resolve the dispute had been convened for 17.5.1996. At a given point of time, Mohinder Singh was putting a cot in the courtyard. His son Sewa Singh PW-4 and former's wife Swaran Kaur were also available over there. Tarlok Singh appellant and deceased accused Joginder Singh were also present. Mohinder Singh informed appellant Tarlok Singh that he (former) wants to construct a boundary wall around the Bara and the matter should be settled in the Panchayat. Appellant Tarlok Singh and Joginder Singh started hurling filthy abuses at Mohinder Singh. Both of them told Mohinder Singh that they would take care of the Panchayat, if it (Panchayat) let him take the Bara which was their property. Thereupon, deceased accused Joginder Singh got engaged in a scuffle with Mohinder Singh first informant. When that fight was in progress, appellant Tarlok Singh took out a knife and gave a blow into the abdomen of Mohinder Singh. When Sewa Singh and Swaran Kaur tried to come to the rescue of Mohinder Singh, appellant Tarlok Singh gave a knife blow on the right arm of the former. Appellant Tarolok Singh and accused Joginder Singh fled the spot immediately thereafter. Mohinder Singh was initially taken to Primary Health Centre, Singhpura. From there, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ropar. The impugned occurrence was notified to the police vide complaint Ex. PH filed by Mohinder Singh. Formal FIR Ex. PH/2 under Section 324/34 IPC was recorded on the basis thereof. The injury found on the person of Mohinder Singh was Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -3- **** declared grievous and also dangerous to life at a subsequent point of time. The offence, on the basis thereof, was converted into under Section 307 IPC. After Tarlok Singh had been arrested, he made disclosure statement (Ex. PM) on 21.5.1996 and led to the recovery of knife Ex. P6 which was taken into possession by the police. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW-1 Tarsem Singh Patwari, PW-2 Dr. Kalyan Singh, Medical Officer, PW-3 Mohinder Singh, PW-4 Sewa Singh, PW-5 Jodh Singh, PW-6 ASI Jaswant Singh, PW-7 Constable Paras Ram and PW-8 Constable Rakesh Raj. PW-1 Tarsem Singh Patwari had proved Ex. PA, correct copy of Jamabandi for the indicated period. He had also prepared scaled site plan Ex. PB by visiting the spot on 10.9.1996 at the instance of Sewa Singh, Swaran Kaur and SI Jaswant Singh. PW-2Dr. Kalyan Singh, Medical Officer, PHC, Nurpur Bedi had medico legally examined Mohinder Singh and found the following injury on his person:- “An incised wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm elliptical in shape. Placed longitudinally on the left side of abdomen about 5 cm lateral to umbilicus. 3 cm deep, extra peritionial fat present out side the wound. Bowel sounds sluggish. Distention of abdomen present. Advised ultrasound abdomen and specialist opinion.” Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -4- **** PW-2 Dr. Kalyan Singh further found that:- “Patient was conscious but in shock. His BP was unrecordable and pulse very feeble. The blood pressure and pulse of the patient was maintained with drugs and supportive treatment and the patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Probable duration of the injury was within 3 hours and injury was under observation after U.S. And specialist report. Kinde of weapon use was sharp.” PW-2 Dr. Kalyan Singh had also medico legally examined Sewa Singh PW-4 and found the following injury on his person:- “An incised wound of 9 cm x 4.5 cm. Muscle deep. Placed on anterior surface of right fore-arm 5 cm below and laterli oblique to the right elbow joint. Movements of the elbow joint are not restrict.” PW-2 Dr. Kalyan Singh further found as under:- “Patient was conscious. Oriented to time place and person. Pupil murmal. BP pulse within normal limits. Nature of injury was simple. Probable duration within 3 hours and injury was cased by a sharp weapon.” PW-3 Mohinder Singh is first informant/injured; while PW- 4 Sewa Singh is injured and son of the former. PW-5 HC Jodh Singh and PW-7 Constable Paras Ram tendered their formal affidavits Ex. PF and Ex. PS respectively into Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -5- **** evidence. PW-6 ASI Jaswant Singh had conducted the investigation of this case. PW-8 Constable Rakesh Raj had attested the disclsoure statement made by appellant Tarlok Singh and also the recovery got effected by that accused in pursuance of disclosure statement afore- mentioned. The appellant averred as under, in the course of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:- “This is a false case. Complainant after joining hands with the police and doctor has falsely implicated me and my brother Joginder Singh. He wanted to take land in my possession and civil suit was pending in the lower courts. He has implicated me to take forcible possession of the Bara in my possession which he has taken forcibly during the pendency of this case.” PW-1 Sewa Singh son of Gurbachan Singh was examined in defence evidence. He claimed to be residing in a house which is at a distance of 10 Kadams from his house. He testified that “in my presence no fight took place between accused and Mohinder Singh accused. Infact no fight took place.” Learned Trial Judge approved the prosecution presentation by noticing that there was no reason why a real brother would depose falsely against a sibling. It was also noticed that Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -6- **** there was no likelihood of the injury found on the person of Mohinder Singh being self-suffered. Sewa Singh was found to be a stamped witness. The learned trial Judge refused to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution presentation on account of non examination of Swaran Kaur. Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, has a grievance that the impugned finding is completely oblivious of the fact that FIR in the case had been lodged after unexplained delay. It is also argued that the prosecution presentation did not deserve credence as it was not corroborated by any independent witness from the vicinity of the place of occurrence. That the parties to the present prosecution are siblings of each other and that their inter-se relationship is not easy is apparent from the record. At the same time, it cannot be ignored from consideration that the injury found on the person of Mohinder Singh had been declared to be grievous and dangerous to life. That declaration had been supported by the PW-2 Medical Officer who treated Mohinder Singh. This fact is apparent from certification Ex.PG/1 issued on the police plea Ex. PG. It is apparent from the record that there was no delay in notifying the offence to the police. The impugned occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 A.M. The injured duo (Mohinder Singh and Sewa Singh) reached the PHC, Singhpura at 7.55 A.M. Though it cannot be denied that Mohinder Singh came to be medico legally examined only at 9.15 A.M., that fact cannot visit the prosecution Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -7- **** presentation with any adverse consequence. Apart therefrom, the complainant/first informant had been referred to Civil Hospital, Ropar where he was hospitalised for a period of 7-8 days. Apart therefrom, the weapon of offence, was got recovered by the appellant in pursuance of a disclosure statement. It is not the defence plea that the disclosure statement and consequent recovery are a bogus affair. If that had been so, it was for the appellant to have approached the higher authorities, accusing the investigating agency of padding/creating evidence against him. It would be apparent from a perusal of the testimony of PW-3 Mohinder Singh and PW-4 Sewa Singh (father and son inter-se) that they categorically averred that it was the appellant and Joginder Singh, who had, first of all, started giving filthy abuses to Mohinder Singh and, then, followed that the act of inflicting of knife blows upon Mohinder Singh by appellant Tarlok Singh. Apart therefrom, Sewa Singh is a stamped witness inasmuch as he had received injury on his person when he endeavoured intervention and to come to rescue of his father from being belaboured at the hands of appellant Tarlok Singh. Though the learned counsel for the appellant is correct on facts when he points out that blood stained earth had not been lifted from the spot by the Investigating Agency the learned Trial Judge was fully justified in holding that mere non lifting of blood stained earth from the spot would have no sinister consequence viz-a-viz prosecution presentation because the factum of impugned Criminal Appeal No. 334-SB of 2000 -8- **** occurrence itself had been attested by the testimony of both the injured (PW-3 Mohinder Singh and PW-4 Sewa Singh). The present, thus, is a case in which commission of impugned crime had been notified to the police without any delay. The testimony of PW-3 Mohinder Singh and PW-4 Sewa Singh is credible and natural. Both the PWs Mohinder Singh and Sewa Singh are stamped witnesses inasmuch as they sustained injuries out of which the injury on the person of the former was declared to be grievous and dangerous to life. The medical segment is fully supportive of the ocular presentation. The correctness of line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge in appreciating evidence is affirmed. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. August 06, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE