Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000
Date of Decision: 19.11.2008
The State of Punjab
...Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab, for the appellant.
Mr. Narinder Singh Swaitch, Advocate
for the respondents.
Mr. Karamjit Verma, Advocate
for the complainant.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
State of Punjab had sought leave to appeal against the
acquittal of respondent-accused and the same was granted by this
Court vide order dated 5.10.2000 and hence the present appeal against
acquittal is before us.
Accused/respondent namely Amar Singh son of Puran Singh,
Sukhminder Singh, Narinder Singh, sons of Amar Singh, Sukhminder
Singh, Rupinder Singh, sons of Nishan Singh Devinder Singh and Avtar
Singh, sons of Amarjit Singh were nominated as accused in case FIR
No. 113 dated 3.10.1989 registered at Police Station Sahnewal,
Ludhiana, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 148 & 149 IPC.
In the FIR, it was stated by Gurdip Singh complainant that he
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 2
is resident of village Ghaloti, Police Station Payal. He came to village of
accused Ramgarh on 1.10.1989 on the Housewarming Ceremony of
his cousin Harwant Singh who had kept Akhand Path at his house. It is
stated in the FIR that on 1.10.1989 at 6.00 P.M., Baldev Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Harminder Singh had also come to attend the
Akhand Path. On 1.10.1989 complainant Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Harminder Singh were going to ease themselves
and when they were crossing in front of the house of Amar Singh in the
street, there Amar Singh along with his companion accused attacked
them. At that time Amar Singh was armed with stick, Sukhwinder Singh
with kirpan, Narinder Pal Singh with gandasa, Sukhwinder Singh with
gandasa, Rupinder Singh with dang, Happy with iron rod and Bittu with
dang. Sukhwinder Singh had caused kirpan blow on the right hand in
the first finger of right hand of the complainant. Narinder Pal Singh hit
him with gandasa on left ankle of the leg. Complainant fell down and
raised alarm “MAR DITTA MAR DITTA”. When the complainant fell on
the ground, Rupinder Singh, Happy and Bittu had also caused injuries
with sticks. Complainant further alleged that while Baldev Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Harminder Singh intervened to rescue the
complainant, accused had also caused them injuries. Complainant
Gurdip Singh along with Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Harminder
Singh were taken to hospital for medicolegal examination. The
Investigating Officer arrived there and recorded the statement of
complainant.
FIR was investigated. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
(challan) was filed in which it was stated that accused have committed
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 3
offence punishable under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 & 149 IPC
Learned trial Court charge sheeted the accused for above
offences, on 18.2.1995.
Prosecution proved medical evidence by examining Dr. K.L.
Kapur as PW.1 and Dr. Anupam Wats as PW.2.
Gurdip Singh complainant as PW.4, Baldev Singh and
Harminder Singh eye witnesses appeared as PW.5 and PW.6,
respectively.
Prem Nath, Assistant Sub Inspector, was examined as PW.3.
Darshan Singh was examined as PW.7.
Documents regarding injury, reports, pictorial diagrams of the
injuries, X-ray Reports, First Information Report, site plan and other
material documents were proved and exhibited.
Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. All the incriminating evidence was put to them and they
denied the same.
In defence, accused examined Dr. Vimal Kanish as DW.1.
Om Parkash and Kuldip Kumar Singh were examined as
DW.2 and DW.3, respectively. They tendered various documents
including photocopy of medicolegal report of Amar Singh as Ex.D1,
pictorial diagram as D2 and photocopy of sale deed as Ex.DW2/1 and
another certified copy of sale Deed Ex.DW3/1 and other necessary
documents were also got accepted.
Learned trial Court noticed that Gurdip Singh had suffered 18
injuries out of which injury Nos. 3, 4 & 7 were caused with sharp edged
weapon and rest of the injuries with the blunt weapons. Injury Nos. 1, 2,
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 4
3, 4, 5, 6, 14 & 16 were kept under observation.
Baldev Singh had suffered ten injuries. Injury Nos. 1 & 4 were
declared grievous, while injuries No.2,3 and 5 to 10 were declared
simple.
Sukhdev Singh had suffered four injuries and Harminder Singh
had suffered one incised injury on the back of scalp.
Learned trial Court also noticed that Amar Singh was also
medicolegally examined and he had suffered six injuries out of which
injury Nos. 4 & 6 were declared grievous. Injury No.2 was on the left
lower leg. Injury No.6 was on the left feet. It would be pertinent to
mention here that accused Amar Singh had also suffered one injury i.e.
injury No.1 on his head i.e. on his left frontal region. Learned trial Court
also noticed the plea of defence counsel that the complainant party had
a motive to attack as there was a dispute pending over piece of land in
the village.
Learned trial Court held that cross case has been also
registered in the same FIR against the complainant party for causing
injuries to Amar Singh.
Learned trial Court formulated its opinion that the occurrence
in the present case had taken place in front of residential house of
accused Amar Singh. The complainant party had a motive to attack
Amar Singh as there was a dispute over a piece of land pending
between Amar Singh and Harwant Singh. Harwant Singh has also
instituted a suit for specific performance against Bhajan Singh from
whom Amar Singh had purchased the land. Thus, it was concluded that
Harwant Singh’s party and Amar Singh’s party were on daggers drawn.
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 5
It could also be taken into consideration that Gurdip Singh had come
from another village on the pretext of attending Akhand Path which was
kept due to housewarming ceremony. It was the case of the prosecution
that four persons who had come to house of Harwant Singh namely
Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Harminder Singh were
passing in front of the house of the accused when the occurrence
ensued. As per prosecution, these all four persons were empty handed.
In this context, learned trial Court found the version of Amar Singh’s
party to be natural and improbable that these accused had attacked
Amar Singh and caused serious injuries, therefore, in self-defence
injuries were caused to the complainant witness.
It is worthwhile to notice that no explanation had been
furnished by the prosecution regarding the injuries suffered by Amar
Singh, therefore, the origin and genesis of the occurrence has been
suppressed by prosecution.
Taking into consideration the fact that Gurdip Singh belongs to
another village and occurrence had taken place in front of the house of
Amar Singh when on the pretext of easing themselves, four persons
namely Gurdip Singh, Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Harminder
Singh were passing in front of the house of Amar Singh who were none
else but guest of Harwant Singh with whom Amar Singh was having
inimical relations, it can be safely inferred that the complainant party was
aggressor.
It has been urged before us by Mr. K.S.Dadwal, learned
Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that nature and number of injuries
suggest that accused party was aggressor. It has been stated that
Criminal Appeal No. 530-DBA of 2000 6
Gurdip Singh had suffered 18 injuries, Baldev Singh 10 injuries,
Sukhdev Singh four injuries and Harminder Singh one injury whereas
Amar Singh has only suffered six injuries out of which two were
grievous and one injury was on the head. Therefore, it has been urged
that in view of number and nature of injuries, accused can be held to be
aggressors. We are of the view that right of self defence cannot be
weighed in golden scales. Once Amar Singh was attacked, his son, and
younger relations being there proved to be better than the complainant
party and had caused injuries in their right of self-defence. Due to
inimical relations of Amar Singh with Harwant Singh, occurrence in front
of house of Amar Singh was not an innocent act.
Mr. Dadwal has failed to satisfy us as to how Amar Singh
suffered injuries in case complainant party was empty handed.
We are also conscious that evidence is not to be re-
appreciated in appeal against acquittal. The findings of learned trial
Court are not perverse. The view formulated by learned trial Court is one
view which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, acquittal of accused/respondents cannot be disturbed.
Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is
dismissed.
(Uma Nath Singh) (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge Judge
November 19, 2008
"DK"