Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 Date of decision : 1.7.2008 Krishan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** 2. Criminal Revision No. 1313 of 1999 Bharpur Singh .....Petitioner Versus Krishan Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate as Amicus Curiae Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. Krishan Singh, Pal Singh and Satnam Singh were tried on a charge under Sections 302, 324/34 IPC. Satnam Singh earned a verdict of acquittal which is under challenge in the Criminal Revision No. 1313 of 1999 preferred by the complainant. Krishan Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC while his son/co-accused Pal Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC but was convicted for an Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 -2- **** offence under Section 324 IPC. The finding recorded was that Pal Singh did not share the attributed common intention with his father. The appeal preferred by Krishan Singh is dismissed as abated in view of the information furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab that the afore-mentioned appellant is dead. The adjudication of the appeal would, thus, be only qua Pal Singh appellant. The adjudicatory exercise would also pertain to challenge filed by Bharpur Singh against exoneration of Satnam Singh. On the birth of a male child to the wife of Pal Singh appellant, deceased Balkar Singh taunted the mother of the child to give a party. The taunt was not relished by appellant Pal Singh. On 15.6.1996, deceased Balkar Singh and PW-2 Bharpur Singh were present at the Aryawala chowk when deceased appellant Krishan Singh, present appellant Pal Singh and acquitted accused ( a son of Krishan Singh and real brother of Satnam Singh) came out of their Atta Chakki. The deceased appellant, in the context of the taunt given by Balkar Singh, raised a lalkara that Balkar Singh would be served by his Bhabhi ( a reference to the wife of appellant Pal Singh). Thereafter, deceased appellant Krishan Singh took out a Kirpan from out of the sword belt and gave a blow with it on the flank of Balkar Singh. Appellant Pal Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the right arm of Balkar Singh. All this while, the acquitted accused raised a lalkara that Balkar Singh should not be allowed to get away. The occurrence was witnessed by Pritam Singh and Hoshiar Singh. On the arrival of Balwinder Singh PW-3 at the spot, all the accused fled the spot and carried along their weaponry. The injured, who had become unconscious, was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 -3- **** Patiala. He died thereafter at the hospital. Insofar as Satnam Singh is concerned, he is alleged to have been armed with only a soti. The only allegation, appearing in the FIR against him, is that he raised a lalkara that Balkar Singh should not be spared that day. There is no allegation that he gave any blow to Balkar Singh with the soti he was carrying at that point of time. In that view of things, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge qua Satnam Singh. Having said that on merits, qua the challenge of acquittal of Satnam Singh, we would also like to simultaneously dispose of the plea made by the complainant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the heirs of Balkar Singh. The amount of fine, ordered to be disbursable to heirs of Balkar Singh deceased as compensation, was quantified by the learned Trial Judge by noticing the relevant statutory provision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant has not been able to invite our attention any fact to challenge the reasonableness of the amount awarded by the learned Trial Judge. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. We have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 -4- **** In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. Cumulatively viewed, the petition preferred by Bharpur Singh shall stand declined in toto. Insofar as the appeal preferred by Pal Singh is concerned, it already stands noticed by us that his culpability in the crime, with which he stands charged, is fully proved by the ocular presentation made by PW-2 Bharpur Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh, both of whom gave a vivid description of the manner in which Pal Singh caused injuries to the deceased Balkar Singh. His exoneration from the charge of being vicariously accountable for the death of Balkar Singh notwithstanding, he is proved to have caused injuries to Balkar Singh. Learned Trial Judge recorded transparent and adequate reasoning to hold him accountable for the commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Pal Singh argues that testimony of PW-2 Bharpur Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh should be discarded as they are relations of deceased Balkar Singh. The reasoning behind the plea cuts at the very root of the plea itself. It is the witnesses, who have relate-ability to the deceased, who would be inclined to ensure that the perpetrator of the crime is punished. There is no law which would authorise the outright discarding of testimony of relation witnesses. In the present case, we find no adequate reasons to discard the testimony of PW-2 Bharpur Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh, particularly when the ocular presentation is cemented by the medical Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 1999 -5- **** segment and there is proven material on the file to the effect that deceased taunted the wife of appellant Pal Singh. Learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argues that impugned finding is untenable as there was no motive at all on the part of the appellant in having caused any injury. The plea raised is completely oblivious of material placed on the file in the statements of PW-2 Bharpur Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh, the latter being the real brother of the deceased. Theirs is precise testimony to the effect that the deceased had taunted the wife of Pal Singh appellant which (taunt) had not been relished by the present appellant. It cannot, thus, be said with any justification that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive which actual the present appellant (Pal Singh) to commit the impugned crime. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge in convicting appellant Pal Singh. The appeal filed by appellant Pal Singh being devoid of merit, is ordered to be dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE July 01, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE