JUDGMENT
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by Bastar against the judgment/order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1995, whereby the appellant Bastar has been held guilty of having committed the murder of Bardanmin, and as such, he has been convicted of the offence punishable, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has also been held guilty for having inflicted grievous injuries to Ildanmin, and as such, has been convicted of the offence punishable, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order passed on 7.9.1998, the appellant Bastar was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appellant Bastar has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences imposed on the appellant were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution version of the incident emerges from the complaint made by Ildanmin PW 11 on 1.10.1988. Ildanmin made a complaint to Inspector Tejinder Singh PW 10, that he alongwith Bardanmin his co-villager, were engaged for the last about one and a half years by Tara Singh PW 6, were sleeping in the dera of Tara Singh PW 6, on the night intervening 30.9.1988 and 1.10.1988, after having completed the day’s work. He had woken up on hearing cries of his co-villager Bardanmin. Having woken up, Ildanmin saw accused Lachhman (who was an employee of Amrik) and the accused/appellant Bastar, inflicting kirpan blows on Bardanmin. Seeing them inflicting blows on Bardanmin, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 proceeded towards him so as to rescue him. Whereupon, both the accused Lachhman and Bastar attacked him and gave him injuries on his head, right hand and left shoulder with their kirpans. On having received the aforesaid injuries at the hands of the two accused, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 so as to save himself, ran away and concealed himself in the paddy fields. After inflicting injuries, accused Lachhman and Bastar went away alongwith their kirpans. In the morning, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 returned to the dera of Tara Singh and found Bardanmin lying dead. Leaving him at the spot, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 immediately proceeded to the residence of Tara Singh PW 6, to inform him about the incident. Tara Singh PW 6 sent his brother Darshan Singh to the place of occurrence and he (Tara Singh PW 6) accompanied the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 to make a complaint to the police. In his complaint, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 also mentioned, that there was a money dispute between the parties which was the motive for committing the murder of Bardanmin. On the basis of the aforesaid occurrence which had taken place on the night intervening 30.9.1988 and 1.10.1988, a First Information Report bearing No. 66 was registered at Police Station Subhnanpur in Kapurthala , at 6.30 AM on 1.10.1988.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a trial was conducted only against the appellant Bastar as Lachhman could not be arrested. And as such, was declared as a proclaimed offender. The accused/appellant Bastar was arrested on 10.10.1995, whereupon, he was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, as has been noticed hereinabove.
4. On the completion of the investigation, a challan dated 27.9.1995 was presented in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, concluded that a prima-facie case punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused/appellant Bastar. Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, by an order dated 30.11.1995 committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
5. The Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, by his order dated 20.12.1995, charged appellant/accused Bastar for having committed the murder of Bardanmin by intentionally causing his death, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused Bastar was also charged for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant Ildanmin PW 11, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant/accused – Bastar when confronted with the charges levelled against him, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant/accused Bastar, the prosecution produced a number of witnesses. A brief description of the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, is being summarised hereunder. The prosecution first of all, produced Dr. Ravi Kumar Sood, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nakodar, as PW 1. Dr. Ravi Kumar Sood PW 1 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bardanmin. According to the postmortem report, the body of deceased – Bardanmin had the following twelve injuries:
1. Incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm on left side of fact and neck extending medially to 4 cm external to left side of nose and laterally to inferior area of mastoid region. Lobula of the left ear partially cut. On dissection underlying bones were cut and carotid vessels were also cut.
2. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm lateral to left side of fact vertically placed, 2 cm lateral to left orbital margin. On dissection underlying bones fractured and brain matter and meninges lacerated. Blood present in anterior and middle cranial fossae.
3. Incised wound 2 cm x .4 cm on left side of forehead obliquely placed 1 cm above outer half of left eye brow.
4. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .6 cm on middle of forehead obliquely placed 6 cm above the bridge of nose.
5. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .4 cm on left side of head obliquely placed 3 cm posterio-superior to left ear pinna.
6. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm on back of left side of chest in upper scabular region 10 cm from midline, horizontally placed at the level of T3 vertebra. On dissection, underlying scabular bone fractured.
7. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm on back of right side of chest middle portion obliquely placed 9 cm from midline at level of T5 vertebra.
8. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .4 cm on back of right side of chest in lower portion, horizontally placed 3 cm from midline muscle deep at level of T9 vertebra.
9. Incised wound 1.2 cm x .4 cm on front of left upper arm in lower portion 3 cm from cubital line obliquely placed muscle deep.
10. Incised wound 1.5 cm x .6 cm on intero-lateral side of right forearm upper portion 2.5 cm below cubital fossa. Muscle deep.
11. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm on medial side of palmer surface of 1 ft hand 3.5 cm below writ joint, Muscle deep.
12. Incised wound 1.2 cm x .5 cm on middle portion of palmar surface of right hand obliquely placed 6 cm from wrist joint. Muscle deep.
7. According to Dr. Ravi Kumar Sood PW 1, the cause of death of Bardanmin was haemorrhage and shock due to injuries on his body. Dr. Ravi Kumar Sood PW 1 opined, that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The statement of ASI Mangal Singh was recorded as PW 2. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PF. His deposition was limited to the fact that he had taken the sealed parcels prepared at the place of occurrence, to the Malkhana, in proper condition. Constable Dharam Pal PW 3 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PG. A perusal of his affidavit reveals, that he was deputed by Inspector Tejinder Singh PW 10 to get the postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of Bardanmin. The statement of Satnam Singh was recorded as PW 4. Constable Satnam Singh PW 4 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PH. A perusal of his affidavit reveals, that he had delivered the special report of the case on the same day on which it was handed over to him, at 1.45 PM. The statement of Kranti Parshad was recorded as PW 5. He is also a formal witness. He affirmed that he had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PJ. The statement of Tara Singh was recorded as PW 6. It would be pertinent to mention, that deceased Bardanmin and complainant Ildanmin PW 11 were both under his employment at the time of occurrence. Tara Singh PW 6 stated, that the deceased, as well as, the complainant were employed by him as labourers in his fields, and that, both of them resided at his dera on his fields. He confirmed the factual position depicted by the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 to the effect, that at about 4.00 AM on the date of occurrence, Ildanmin PW 11 had come to his residence and told him, that the accused/appellant Bastar and Lachhman had caused injuries to Bardanmin, resulting in his death, and that, when he had attempted to intervene, the accused/appellant Bastar and Lachhman had also inflicted three injuries on his body. Tara Singh PW 6, on hearing the narration of the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 deposed that he and his brother Darshan proceeded towards the police station to make a complaint. Having met the police on their way, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 got his statement recorded. The statement of Sarwan Singh was recorded as PW 7. He confirmed, that he had arrested appellant/accused Bastar on 10.10.1995. The statement of Ravi Datt was recorded as PW 8. He is stated to have partly investigated the case under reference, and had also arrested co-accused Lachhman on 19.1.1989. He is also stated to have got declared the co-accused Lachhman as a proclaimed offender. Constable Joginder Singh was produced as PW 9 during the course of the trial of the case. He is also a formal witness. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. PL. A perusal of Ex. PL reveals, that he had taken the sealed parcels and had deposited the same in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala. The statement of Tejinder Singh was recorded as PW 10. He had recorded the statement of the complainant Ildanmin on 1.10.1988 (Ex. PC). He had also sent the parcels to the police station for registration of a case on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was registered (Ex. PC/2). Inspector Tejinder Singh PW 10 having recorded the statement of complainant Ildanmin PW 11 proceeded to the spot and prepared the inquest report Ex. PD. He also prepared various parcels and affixed his seal thereon. According to the statement of Inspector Tejinder Singh PW 10, he had sent the dead body of Bardanmin for postmortem examination. The statement of Ildanmin was recorded as PW 11. In his statement, he reiterated the statement made by him when he made a complaint to the police on 1.10.1988 by asserting, that appellant/accused Bastar alongwith Lachhman had come to the dera of Tara Singh. They were both armed with kirpans. They had inflicted kirpan blows on the deceased Bardanmin, as well as, on him (Ildanmin PW 11). He asserted, that he had received three kirpan blows, one on his head, the second on his right arm and the third on his left shoulder, which had been inflicted by the accused. He claims to have hidden in the paddy fields while the accused inflicted kirpan blows on Bardanmin. After about two hours when the accused had left the place of occurrence, he had come out of the paddy fields and found the dead body of Bardanmin. He had immediately gone to the residence of his employer Tara Singh PW 6 to bring the incident to his notice. Whereupon, in the company of Tara Singh PW 6, he proceeded towards the Police Station to register his complaint. He met the police party on his way and lodged a complaint with the police party. The statement of Dr. Sharanjit Singh, who had medically examined Ildanmin PW 11 on 1.10.1988 at 6.50 AM, appeared on behalf of the prosecution as PW 12. As per the report of Dr. Sharanjit Singh PW 12, the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 had the following five injuries:
1. Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm on the back surface of right leg starting from base of index finger extending upto 2 cm below ring finger. Underlying tendons were cut and underlying bones 2nd and 3rd matacorpals were cut. Fresh bleeding present after cleaning the wounds.
2. Incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the palmer aspect of right thumb, part of nail was also cut, clot present.
3. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm on right temporal region 8 cm above right ear, under bone was also cut. Fresh bleeding present after cleaning the clot.
4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm in the occipital region, wound was skin deep. Fresh bleeding present after cleaning clot.
5. Two incised wounds 2 cm x .5 cm on back of left shoulder. Wounds were skin deep. Fresh bleeding present after cleaning wounds.
8. Out of the aforesaid injuries, Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were described by Dr. Sharanjit Singh, as grievous, whereas, the remaining two injuries No. 4 and 5 were described as simple. In the opinion of Dr. Sharanjit Singh, all the injuries on the body of complainant Ildanmin PW 11 had been caused with a sharp edged weapon.
9. The statement of accused Bastar was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 26.3.1998. The accused/appellant Bastar denied the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution when he was confronted with the same. In his statement, the accused/appellant Bastar asserted, that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.
10. The Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, delivered the judgement in Case No. 87 of 1995, on 7.9.1998, wherein the accused/appellant Bastar was held guilty of having committed the murder of Bardanmin. He was, accordingly, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also held guilty of having caused grievous injuries to the complainant Ildanmin PW 11, and was, accordingly, convicted under Section 326 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After having heard the accused Bastar on the question of sentence, on 7.9.1998, the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. For his conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
11. The appellant/accused Bastar has impugned the judgement/order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which he has been convicted and sentenced, through the instant appeal.
12. A perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, as well as, the judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, reveal that while holding appellant -Bastar guilty, strong reliance has been placed on the statement of complainant Ildanmin PW 11, as well as, the corroboratory statement of Tara Singh PW 6. In conjunction with the aforesaid statement, reliance has also been placed on the expert medical evidence produced by the prosecution through the statements of Dr. Ravi Kumar Sood PW 1, who confirmed that the deceased Bardanmin had received twelve injuries. All the twelve injuries were in the nature of incised wounds and could have been caused by kirpan blows. Reliance was also placed on the expert medical evidence placed on the record of the case through the statement of Dr. Sharanjit Singh PW 12, who deposed that complainant Ildanmin PW 11 had suffered five injuries on his person, all of which had been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 (extracted above) were grievous in nature, and such, could not have been self-inflicted. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court recorded the guilt of appellant/accused Bastar for having committed the murder of Bardanmin, and for having caused grievous injuries on the person of the complainant Ildanmin PW 11.
13. The solitary contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that there were numerous discrepancies in the statement of complainant Ildanmin PW 11, recorded by the Investigating Officer Inspector Tejinder Singh PW 10 on the date of occurrence i.e. on the night intervening 30.9.1988 and 1.10.1988 as compared to the deposition made by him on oath, when he appeared before the trial Court as PW 11 on 2.2.1998. In order to fully appreciate the discrepancies, it would be essential to extract the aforestated version of complainant Ildanmin PW 11. Accordingly, the complaint made by complainant Ildanmin PW 11 to the police Ex. PC/1 on 1.10.1988 is being extracted hereunder:
It is stated that I and Bardanmin s/o Patranmin who is my covillager, do the work of labourer for the last about 1 years with Tara Singh s/o Charan Sigh Lobana r/o Nadala. Yesterday night I and Bardanmin were sleeping in the dera of Tara Singh, after doing our work. I woke up hearing the cries of Bardanmin. I saw that Lachhman who used to work with Amrik in the Mandi Nadal and Bastar s/o not known r/o Thutni Amba Tetertoli P.O. Ara P.S. Jaspur Nagar Distt. Raigrah MP to whom I know earlier, having kirpans and were killing Bardanmin. When I advanced to rescue him, they both also attacked me and gave injuries me on my head, right hand and left shoulder with kirpans, but I escaped by concealing myself in paddy crops. At that time an electric bulb was on, in the d era. After giving me injuries they both ran away with their kirpans from the spot towards the village. I did not come from paddy crop due to fear. In the morning I saw that Bardan was lying dead bismered with blood. I leaving him there went to inform my master. He sent his brother Darshan Singh where the dead body was lying and I alongwith Tara Singh, my master was coming to inform you that you had met us. The motive of murder is that there was some money dispute among them.
14. Examination-in-chief of Ildanmin PW 11, as it was recorded when he appeared before the trial Court on 2.2.1998, is being extracted hereunder:
About nine years ago, at night time, I and Wardanmin were present at a dera of Tara Singh in village Nadala. When we were sleeping, the accused now present in court came there. The accused called us and challenged that where we will go. Accused Lachhman had also come with accused Bastar now present in court. They both were armed with a kirpan each. Accused Bastar and Lachhman tried to give kirpan blows. They gave me kirpan blows on my head, right arm and left shoulder. After receipt of injuries, I became unconscious. The accused and Lachhman then gave kirpan blows to Wardanmin after running behind him upto a distance of 50 karms. I regained consciousness and concealed myself by entering a paddy field. I had heard the voice of kirpan blows when the accused and Lachhman were given blows to Wardan. On account of the injuries received by Wardan at the hands of the accused and Lachhman, he died. After about two hours, I came out of paddy field. Both the accused had run away towards village. I went near the dead body of Wardan. He had bleeding injuries on the dead body. I went to Tara Singh in the village and informed him a bout the occurrence. I went to police to lodge the report when the police met me at Lakhan-ke. I made my statement before police which was read over to me and I thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. The statement is Ex. PC.
The accused and Lachhman had given kirpan blows to me and Wardan as they had stolen our money. We asked them to return the money but they were not giving it back to us. I was medically examined by the doctor.
15. In order to justify the discrepancies pointed out from the statements of complainant Ildanmin PW 11 recorded on 1.10.1988 when compared with the statement recorded on 2.2.1998, learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, vehemently contends that the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 is an illiterate labourer. The incident under reference had occurred in the year 1988, whereas his statement was recorded ten years later in the year 1998. He further contended, that the discrepancies, if any, are minor in nature, and must be over-looked specially in the background of the fact, that complainant Ildanmin PW 11 is a stamped eye witness on account of the fact, that he had not only himself witnessed the occurrence but had also suffered five injuries at the hands of accused Bastar and Lachhman during the course of the occurrence. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent, that the injuries on the person of the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 have been established through credible expert medical evidence. Three of the injuries received by the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 during the course of the occurrence, were grievous in nature, and as such, could not have been self inflicted. He also contended, that the injuries caused on the body of deceased Bardanmin, and that of complainant Ildanmin PW 11, were all incised injuries, which lead to the inference, that they had been caused by a similar sharp edged weapon, confirming the statement made by Ildanmin PW 11, that the accused had caused the injuries with kirpans. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent, that if the co-accused Lachhman had been innocent, he would not have absconded, but he would have faced trial. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent, that the co-accused Lachhman continued to be a proclaimed offender till he was eventually arrested on 10.10.1995 after a lapse of about seven years. Besides the aforesaid, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent, that the statement of Tara Singh PW 6 corroborates the statement of the complainant Ildanmin PW 11. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that Tara Singh PW 6 is neither related to the accused nor to the complainant. The statement made by Ildanmin to Tara Singh is natural, inasmuch as, an illiterate employee would repose confidence in his employer and bring to his notice an incident like the one in hand immediately to the notice of his employer. Tara Singh while appearing as PW 6, also narrated the version communicated to him by Ildanmin PW 11 soon after the occurrence. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent, that the statement of Tara Singh PW 6 constitutes res-gestae in terms of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
16. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of this case, as also, the submissions made by the rival parties, the only issue to be adjudicated upon at our hands is whether the discrepancies in the two statements of the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 recorded on 1.10.1988 and thereafter, on oath during the trial of the case on 2.2.1998, constitute a sufficient basis for doubting the veracity thereof, so as to discard the same and thereby, to hold the accused/appellant Bastar innocent in the absence of any other evidence. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, we are one with the learned Counsel for the respondent, that the discrepancies in the two statements are trivial in nature, and may occur naturally, specially when the space in terms of time between the two statements, is almost a decade. It also cannot be over-looked, that author of the statements, is an illiterate person, and is bound to make such mistakes. Twelve injuries caused on the body of deceased Bardanmin, and five injuries caused on the person of complainant Ildanmin PW 11 being similar in nature, namely, in the nature of incised wound, can easily be treated as having been caused during the course of the same occurrence. The very fact, that the person of complainant Ildanmin PW 11 is shown to bear five injuries, three of them being grievous in nature, leaves no manner of doubt, that complainant Ildanmin PW 11 is a stamped eye witness. The presence of Ildanmin PW 11 at the place of occurrence i.e. the dera of Tara Singh PW 6 alongwith the deceased Bardanmin, is natural as it is not a matter of dispute that the deceased Bardanmin and the complainant Ildanmin PW 11 were both working as labourers for Tara Singh PW 6, and used to sleep at the dera on his farm after completing the day’s work. The statement made by Ildanmin immediately after the occurrence to his employer Tara Singh PW 6, who has reiterated the version of Ildanmin PW 11 as was disclosed to him on the date of occurrence also goes a long way to substantiate the prosecution story. Tara Singh PW 6 not only reiterates but also reinforce the factual position disclosed to him by the complainant Ildanmin only a few hours after the occurrence under reference. Neither of the witnesses Ildanmin PW 11 or Tara Singh PW 6, is stated to be inimical to the accused/appellant Bastar. There is no justification, therefore, for them to have made a statement adverse to the accused/appellant Bastar. The discrepancies in the two statements of Ildanmin, in our view, are too trivial so as to discard his entire statement.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in holding the accused/appellant Bastar guilty of the murder of Bardanmin, as well as, guilty of having caused grievous injuries to Ildanmin PW 11.
18. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.