Case: Ajit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab

right leg and from the X-ray he found a small cut, about 1/6th inch in the cortex of tibia in its upper part and on this finding he declared injury No. 3 as grievous.5. The injury on Rajinder Singh was described as follows : "A swelling around the right ankle joint 4 cm. x 3 cm. is present mainly on the medial side of right ankle. A contused area 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the posterior surface of right leg in its lower 1/3rd part of it. Transverse in nature."6. Mohinder Singhs injury was described thus : "An incised wound of 5 cm. x 1.5 cm. elliptical in shape transverse in position. On the posterior surface middle part of the left leg. Both the end of it have a tail of cut. The wound is only skin deep. The wound has been stitched by me. Wound also shows clotted blood in it."Dr. Kalra was cross-examined in order to establish that these injuries were self-suffered or self-inflicted. He deposed that neither Rajinder Singhs injury not Mohinder Singhs injury could be self-inflicted or self-suffered. He was also cross-examined to establish that the story about the piece of bone having been removed and handed over to the police was false but he stuck to his version, as stated in his examination-in-chief.7. The defence examined Dr. Pritam Singh, Radiologist, who had X-rayed Jawand Singhs right leg and, according to him, he found no evidence of fracture in the upper part of the leg. Confronted with the earlier skiagram, he said :"There is a partial cut of 1/6". In an upper part of the tibia but this cut could not be seen in the X-ray taken by me. Probably it might have healed as it was so small."8. One other point which the learned counsel mentioned in connection with the injuries was that it has not been established that injury No. 3 on Jawand Singh was the result of two blows, as deposed by the witnesses. No such question was asked from Dr. Kalra and therefore the learned counsel is not entitled to raise this point.9. The learned counsel urged that the injuries in this case have been self-inflicted. We are unable to agree with him in this respect. Not only has the doctor given opinion on this fact, but we are also not inclined to believe that Jawand Singh would let himself be injured in the way in which he was actually injured. There are five eye-witnesses who support the prosecution story; three are injured persons and Amar Singh, P.W. 2 and Banta Singh, P.W. 3, seem to be quite independent. They were both working near about the place of occurrence.10. The learned Judicial Magistrate adopted a curious method of judging the prosecution case. He listed about 14 points and then dealt with each point separately. The points which he took were :"1. The presence of the witnesses at the spot. Their order of reaching there.2. Possibility of causing by Ajit Singh on the right leg of Jawand Singh.3. Giving of Lalkara. By whom ?4. Presence of the accused at spot.5. Responsibility for the injury caused on the left wrist of Jawand Singh.6. Causing of injury by Mohan Singh accused on the left leg of Jawand Singh.7. Causing of injury by Takwa blow by Bira accused.8. Giving of Takwa blow on the hand of Jawand Singh.9. Causing of Lathi blow on the person of Rajinder Singh.10. Taking the injured person to home. By whom and how ?11. Presence of blood at the spot and in the home.12. Presence of blood on the clothes of the injured.13. The story of cot.14. The story of taking the injured."He did not examine the case of the prosecution as a whole, and, in our opinion, the High Court rightly criticised this method of dealing with the prosecution case. The High Court was perhaps forced also to discuss the reasons given by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of each point, but perhaps it would have been better to have dealt with the evidence as a whole.11. We have looked into the evidence and we find that there is no reason why we should not believe the evidence of Amar Singh, Banta Singh and the three injured witnesses.12. The learned counsel urged that the story of the prosecution is not probable because no blood had been found from the site of the occurrence. But there is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 when they sat that the accused stayed behind and destroyed the evidence by ploughing the land why the police came there was neither any blood not the foot prints of the bullocks, apparently because the accused had cleared the site the next day.13. The learned counsel then urged that the police did not take any blood from the house of the injured persons where they were taken after the assault. We do not see why the police should have bothered to take any blood from the house because if the prosecution case in false and the injuries were self-inflicted blood would be present in the house in that eventuality also.14. The learned counsel then said that three accused persons have been acquitted on the same evidence and that weakens the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses. The High Court has distinguished the case of those accused persons because they had no motive whatsoever. But we are at present not concerned whether those person were guilty or not guilty. The present appellants had motive and were likely to have committed the assault.15. The last point which the learned counsel urged was that the injured persons went to the hospital rather than to the police station. We see no force in this point. It is not necessary that the injured witnesses should first go to the police station. The other witnesses were really interested in the dispute and they chose not to go to the police station. We cannot draw any adverse inference from their behaviour.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are unable to agree with him in this respect. Not only has the doctor given opinion on this fact, but we are also not inclined to believe that Jawand Singh would let himself be injured in the way in which he was actually injured. There are fivewho support the prosecution story; three are injured persons and Amar Singh, P.W. 2 and Banta Singh, P.W. 3, seem to be quite independent. They were both working near about the place ofdid not examine the case of the prosecution as a whole, and, in our opinion, the High Court rightly criticised this method of dealing with the prosecution case. The High Court was perhaps forced also to discuss the reasons given by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of each point, but perhaps it would have been better to have dealt with the evidence as a whole.11. We have looked into the evidence and we find that there is no reason why we should not believe the evidence of Amar Singh, Banta Singh and the three injuredthere is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 when they sat that the accused stayed behind and destroyed the evidence by ploughing the land why the police came there was neither any blood not the foot prints of the bullocks, apparently because the accused had cleared the site the nextdo not see why the police should have bothered to take any blood from the house because if the prosecution case in false and the injuries wereblood would be present in the house in that eventualityHigh Court has distinguished the case of those accused persons because they had no motive whatsoever. But we are at present not concerned whether those person were guilty or not guilty. The present appellants had motive and were likely to have committed thesee no force in this point. It is not necessary that the injured witnesses should first go to the police station. The other witnesses were really interested in the dispute and they chose not to go to the police station. We cannot draw any adverse inference from their behaviour.