JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment. I dispose of Crl. Appeal
No. 106-SB-90 titled Sat Pal and others v. State of
Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 875 of 1990 titled Pritam
Singh v. Satpal and Ors. as in the opinion of this
Court, both the matters can be disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. Crl.Appeal No. 106-SB-90 has been directed
against the judgment of conviction and order or sentence
both dated 27.3.1990, passed by the Court of learned
Sessions Judge, Ambala who convicted the appellants under
Sections 148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay
a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section 148
of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine,
each one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for six
moths. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year
each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for committing
the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine each
one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for a period of
six months. For the offence under Section 304 Part-I read
with Section 149 IPC each one of the appellants was
directed to undergo R.I., for a period of 7 years and also
to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- each. In default of payment of
fine each one of them was called upon to undergo R.I. for
one years. The learned trial Court also held that all the
sentences awarded above shall run concurrently. The whole
of the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- or part recovered shall
be paid in equal shares to the widow, parents if any and
children of the deceased.
3. In the criminal revision, it has been prayed by
Shri Pritam Singh that the sentence awarded to the
appellants may be enhanced and the amount of compensation
may also be enhanced for the benefit of the heirs of the
deceased.
4. S/Shri Satpal, his three real brothers Jasbir
Singh, Mahipal, Mohinder Singh and Bani Singh son of Sadhu
Singh, were charge-sheeted under Sections
148, 302/149, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code on the
allegations that firstly on 22.10.1987 in the area of
village Nagal they constituted an unlawful assembly the
common object of which was to cause the death of Puran
Singh and also to cause injuries to Pritam Singh and they
committed offence of rioting and at that time they
were armed with deadly weapons like lathis and gandasi.
Second charge against the appellants is that on the same
day time and place in furtherance of the common object of
the unlawful assembly they committed the murder of Puran
Singh by intentionally causing his death and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and thirdly on
the same date time and place and in prosecution of the
said common object of the said unlawful assembly they
voluntarily caused simple hurt to Pritam Singh and thereby
committed and offence punishable under Section 323/149 of
the Indian Penal Code.
5. The case set up by the prosecution in the trial
Court was that on 22.10.1987 at about 8.00 P.M. Pritam
Singh and his father Puran Singh were present in their
Gher (cattle shed house). In the meantime, Satpal
appellant who is the resident of the same village and
whose house is situated nearby the house of Pritam Singh
and Puran Singh came there and complained that water from
the hand-pump installed in their Gher accumulates in the
street creating mud in frog of the house of the accused
party. At that time, Satpal appellant was under the
influence of liquor and he abused to Pritam Singh and his
father Puran Singh in the name of mother and sister.
Pritam Singh tried to pacify Satpal. Upon this Satpal
left the place for his house by giving a threat that he
would not spare Puran Singh and his son Pritam Singh.
After a short while he returned to the spot armed with a
Gandasi and again started hurting abuses upon the
complainant. After about two minutes, three brothers of
Satpal Singh namely Mahipal Singh, Jasbir Singh and
Mohinder Singh along with their uncle Bani Singh
(appellants) came there and they were armed with lathis.
Mohinder Singh raised a Lalkara to his companions to beat
Puran Singh and Pritam Singh as they had been objecting to
the filling of the well. Satpal Singh opened the attack
and he gave gandasi blow from the reverse side on the head
of Pritam Singh, Mohinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Pritam
Singh on his head upon which Pritam Singh fell on the
ground. Mahipal Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blows to
Pritam Singh. Mahipal Singh, Bani Singh and Jasbir Singh
further gave lathi blows to Puran Singh followed by Satpal
Singh who gave a gandasi blow from the reverse side on the
head of Puran Singh who also fell down and became
unconscious. The blood came out from the injuries of
Puran Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by one Mohkam
Singh younger brother of Pritam Singh and two residents of
the village namely Sham Singh and Dharam Pal along with
many others who reached at the spot. On seeing them, the
accused fled away from the place of occurrence with their
respective weapons. Both the injured namely Puran Singh
and Pritam Singh were removed to Civil Hospital
Yamunanagar by Mohkam Singh and Sham Singh. On the next
day, Puran Singh was removed to PGI Chandigarh and after 2
days he died there on 25.10.1987. The report about crime
was lodged by Pritam Singh injured witness at 4.30 P.M.
on 23.10.1987 when he made a statement before the
Assistant Sub Inspector Shri Hari Ram. Before recording
the statement of Pritam Singh, the Investigating Officer
took the opinion from the doctor about the fitness of
Pritam Singh who was declared fit to make a statement.
The statement of Pritam Singh was sent to the Police
Station Sadar Yamunanagar on 23.10.1987 for the
registration of the case and all the accused were arrested
on the same day. The Investigating Officer, Shri Hari
Ram, visited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and
lifted the blood stained earth and made a sealed parcel
thereof. This was taken into possession from the cattle
shed of house of Puran Singh. After completion of
investigation of the case, the appellants were challaned
under Sections 302/323/148/149 IPC in the Court of the Area
Magistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the
accused and vide commitment order dated 19.1.1988, he
committed the accused to the Court of Session to face the
trial. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
20.4.1988 framed the charges against the appellants under
Sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The charges were read over and explained to the appellants
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution
examined Shri Pritam Singh injured. Dharam Pal Sham
Singh the residents of the village as the witnesses of the
occurrence.
7. Pritam Singh appearing as PW-10 gave a detailed
account of the occurrence. He made, a statement that on
22.10.1987 at 8.00 P.M. he was present along with his
father Puran Singh in his Gher when appellants Satpal came
in the street in front of their Gher and started abusing
by saying that water discharged from the hand pump of the
complainant accumulates in the street. The witness also
stated that he and his father tried to make him understand
but Shri Satpal Singh left the place of occurrence by
giving threat that he would teach the injured and his
father a lesson. It has also come in the statement of the
injured witness that after sometime Satpal armed with a
Gandasi and the remaining appellants armed with Lathis
came inside the Gher of Puran Singh. Satpal was hurling
abuses and Mohinder Singh gave a Lalkara by entering
inside the Gher exhorting is co-accused that the
complainants should be killed as they had objected to their
act of filling the Panchayat well. It has also come in
the statement of the injured witness that Satpal opened
the attack and he inflicted the Gandasi blow from the
reverse side on the head of Pritam Singh followed by
Mohinder Singh who gave a Lathi blow on his head as a
result of which he fell down and when his father Puran
Singh stepped forward in order to save him. Mahipal Singh,
Jasbir Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blow to his father
Shri Puran Singh followed by Satpal Singh who also gave a
Gandasi blow from the reverse side as a result of which
Puran Singh also fell on the ground. Further, it has come
in the statement of the witness that Mahipal Singh and
Bani Singh gave one Lathi blow each to Pritam Singh when
he was lying on the ground. It has further come in the
statement of Shri Pritam Singh injured witness that Dharam
Pal and Sham Singh reached the spot when the accused were
giving abuses and these witnesses have also witnessed the
occurrence. The statement of injured witness Shri Pritam
Singh has been corroborated in all material particulars by
Shri Dharam Pal who appeared as PW-11.
8. Further it has come in the statement of Sham
Singh who appeared as PW-12 that on the earlier Diwali
day, he was present at his house in the evening when
Satpal Singh and other accused had gone to the Gher of
Puran Singh where Puran Singh along with his son Pritam
Singh was present. He went to the Gher of Puran Singh on
hearing the abuses and found that the appellants were
armed with Gandasi and Lathis and they inflicted the
injuries to S/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh, meaning
thereby that this witness Shri Sham Singh has given ample
corroboration to the statement of Pritam Singh injured and
Shri Dharam Pal. The oral account of three witnesses has
been corroborated by the statement of Dr. Inderjit Dewan.
Emeratis Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Medicine PGI.
Chandigarh who conducted the post mortem examination on
the dead body of Puran Singh. The post-mortem was
conducted by this doctor on 26.10.1987 and he found the
following injuries on the dead body of the deceased Puran
Singh:-
1. A reddish abrasion 4 x 1.5 cm on the upper part
of which there was a lacerated stitched wound.
located on the right side of the scalp.oblique
in directing going downwards and forwards from a
point 2 cm right of middle line and 14 cm above
nasion, the lower part reached 8 cm above and 2
cm right of right eye brow. After stitches had
been removed the lacerated wound was found to
be 1.6 x 0.3 cm and deep to the bone.
2. A lacerated wound 8 x 2 mm deep to bone located
2 cm below and 1 cm in front of injury No. 1.
Description of skull was present
underneath these injuries in an area 10×10 cm.
Operation wound is stitched, curved
operation would 22 cm long on right
fronto-parieto temporal region starting 9 cm
above nasion, going backwards downwards and
the right to reach right pinna.
There was a craniectomy gap 9 x 7 cm
involving right fronto, parietal region of
skull located under injuries No. 1 and 2. A
fragment of bone 3 x 2 cm was present in the
upper posterior part of the craniectomy. A
fracture line extended downward for 4 cm from
the lower posterior angle of craniectomy
towards the temporal region. The dura was
open and brain was protruding through the gap,
it was soft and lacerated. The laceration was
in the fronto parieto temporal region of the
brain on right side. It measured 7x6x2 cm.
The brain was cedematcus, Tonsils, were
grooved. The injuries were ante mortem and in
my opinion were caused by heavy blunt weapon.
Larynx and tracheae were congested. The right
lower lobe of the lung was consolidated while
the other lobes of the right lung and that of
the left were congested and edematous. The
stomach contained 300 cc of dark coffee
coloured fluid and had areas of petechail
haemorrhage on the mucous membranae. Liver
had areas of congestion. All other organs
were healthy.
9. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of
death in this case was laceration of the brain due to the
fractured skull and this injury was caused by a heavy
blunt weapon. This injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause
the death in the ordinary course of nature. Though injury
No. 2 was very small. Dr. Dewan proved Ex.PA the correct
carbon copy of the post mortem report and Exs.P.1 to P.5
are the photographs which were developed in his department
and the photos taken at the time of the post mortem
examination.
10. Further the ocular account is supported by PW-3
Dr. K.K. Arora, Medical officer, M.L. Civil Hospital, Yamuna
Nagar who on 22.10.1987 at 11.00 P.M. medically examined
Pritam Singh PW and found the following four injuries on
his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 3″x1/4″ into scalp deep
present on right parietal scalp covered with
soft clotted blood.
2. A lacerated wound 2″x1/4″ into scalp deep on
frontal scalp I” to the left of midline covered
with soft clotted blood I advised x-ray skull.
AP and lateral view for injury No. 1 and 2 which
were later on fond to be simple in nature after
x-ray examination.
3. A contusion mark 1″x1″ on right cheek below
right eye
The patient was semi conscious, responded to
painful stimulai, pulse was 82 per minute, blood
pressure 100/60 pupils both eyes equal and
reacting to light.
4. Abrasion 1″x1/2″ on the back, 1″ to the left of
midline at the level of T-8.
11. As per the opinion of the Dr. Arora, all the
injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PD is the
correct carbon copy of the MLR.
12. This very doctor also medically examined Shri
Puran Singh deceased at the first instance and the
following five injuries were noticed on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 1″x1/4″ into scalp deep on
right parietal scalp covered with soft
clotted blood.
2. A lacerated wound 1/2″x1/10″ into scalp deep
on frontal scalp 3″ to the right of midline
covered with soft clotted blood.
3. A contusion mark 3″x2″ on right temporal
scalp.
4. A contusion mark 2″x1″ on right eye-brow.
Patient was unable to open his right eye due
to ecchymosis present on right upper lids. I
advised X-ray skull, AP and lateral view for
injuries No. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
5. Patient complained of pain in right shoulder
but no mark of external injury was seen. I
advised X-ray right shoulder.
13.
As per the opinion of the doctor, all the
injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PE is the
correct carbon copy of the MLR. The X-ray was advised and
on x-ray conducted on 23.10.87, it was found that there
was a fracture of skull bone and there was also fracture
of right clavicle bone of Shri Puran Singh. Injury No. 1
was declared dangerous to life while injury No. 5 was
declared grievous. Other injuries were declared simple.
Ex.PF is the X-ray report. Exs.P.6., P.7 and P.8 are the
relevant skigrams. The doctor also stated that he sent
rukka Ex.PG to the Police-Station along with Medico legal
report and he also gave opinion Ex.PH/1 on the police
application Ex.PH to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit
to make a statement. Puran Singh was referred to
PGI, Chandigarh on 23.10.1987. On police application
Ex.PJ, he declared Pritam Singh unfit to make the
statement on 23.10.1987 at about 4.00 A.M. but on the
same day he declared him fit to make a statement at 4.00
P.M. vide his report Ex.PJ/1 and PJ/2.
14. Dr. K. Sridhar, Senior Resident, Neuro Sugery,
PGI, Chandigarh while appearing as PW-9, made a statement
that Shri Puran Singh who was admitted in the PGI on
23.10.1987 and remained unconscious throughout till his
death which took place on 25.10.1987 at 6.50 A.M. The
case of the prosecution is further supported by the
statement of Shri Hari Ram the Investigated Officer PW-8
who on receipt of the rukka Ex.PG along with MLR Ex.PD and
PE, made an entry in the Rojnamcha. He visited the
hospital Yamunanagar. He submitted the application Ex.PH
before the doctor to ascertain his opinion whether Puran
Singh was fit to make a statement or not. Puran Singh was
declared unfit to make a statement. He also submitted
ExPJ regarding the fitness of Pritam Singh. At 4.A.M.
the doctor declared him unfit but at about 4.P.M. he
declared him fit to make statement. Thereafter, he
recorded the statement Ex.PR of Pritam Singh in the
hospital and after making an endorsement Ex.PR/1
underneath the said statement, it was sent to the
Police-Station for the registration of the case on the
basis of which formal FIR Ex.PR/2 was recorded by Sub
Inspector Prabhu Ram. The witness also stated that he
visited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and lifted
blood stained earth and two blood stained bags from the
spot in the presence of Sham Singh and Mohkam Singh vide
Memo Ex.PS and he further prepared the rough site plan
Ex.PT of the place of occurrence. He also deposed that he
arrested all the five accused on 23.10.1987.
15. ASI, Om Prakash was also examined by the
prosecution as PW5 who obtained the opinion Ex.PM/1 from
the doctor to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit to
make a statement. PW-7 Shri Isham Singh made a statement
that Shri Mohinder Singh appellant suffered a disclosure
statement Ex.PO and on the basis of disclosure statement
he got recovered 4 lathis P9 and P.12 and Gandasi P.13
which were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PP.
16. ASI, Prabhu Ram PW-13 deposed that on
25.10.1987 he visited PGI and prepared inquest report
Ex.P8 on the dead body of the Puran Singh and further he
interrogated Mohinder Singh appellant who in pursuance of
the disclosure statement Ex.PO got recovered 4 Lathis and
one gandasi from his tubewell Kotha and those were taken
into possession vide memo Ex.PP.
17. On the closure of the evidence of the
prosecution the statements of the accused were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were
put to the accused. The stand of Shri Jasbir Singh, Bani
Singh, Mohinder Singh and Mahi Pal was that they were not
present at the spot while the stand of Shri Satpal Singh
was that he was an army man and has been falsely
implicated to ensure that he may be dismissed from
services. He stated that he had come to the village on
annual leave. It was a Diwali day. At about 9/10 the
villages including the residents of the mohalla had tried
to close the well in front of his house because there were
complaints of the Mohalla Wala that small children used to
fall in that well. Pritam Singh and Puran Singh had
obstructed the closing of the well even earlier. On that
day Puran and Pritam were under the influence of liquor
and they came there in order to stop the villagers from
filling the well. A scuffle took place between them and
the residents of the Mohalla and during the course of
scuffle Pritam and Puran Singh had suffered injuries.
18. When called upon to enter in to their defence
they did not lead any evidence.
19. The learned trial Court believed the story of
the prosecution but came to the conclusion that the
appellants are guilty for the offence under Sections
148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC.
Resultantly they were convicted and sentenced in the
manner as stated above and aggrieved by their conviction
and sentence the present appeal and the revision by the
complainant.
20. I have heard Shri K.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sanjay
Vashisth, learned DAG, appearing on behalf of the State
and Shri A.S. Khaira, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
complainant and with their assistance have gone through
the record of this case.
21. The first effort which was made by the learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants was
that as the occurrence had taken place on 22.10.1987 on a
Diwali day but the first information was registered on
23.10.1987. There was a delay in the lodging of the first
information report. The submission of the counsel for hue
appellants, cannot be accepted. It is a case of the
prosecution that S/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh
suffered the injuries. Some of the injuries were on the
vital parts of the body. Puran Singh became unconscious.
In these circumstances, it will always be the anxiety of
the attendants to remove the injured to the hospital for
the survival fie their lives. An effort was made by the
Investigating Officer to obtain the opinion from the doctor
on 23.10.1987 itself at 4.00 A.M. and injured were
declared unfit to make a statement. Shri Puran Singh was
referred to bigger hospital for better treatment. Again
an effort was made by the Investigating Officer on
23.10.1987 to obtain the opinion from the doctor at 4.00
P.M. and Pritam Singh was declared fit to make a
statement. In this view of the matter. I am not inclined
to hold that there was any deliberate delay on the part of
the complainant. Be that as it may, the delay per se is
not fatal in this case.
22. It was then submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that Puran Singh and Pritam Singh were the
aggressors as their house was at a higher level. They
used to discharge the water from the hand-pump and the
water used to accumulate in front of the house of the
accused. They and other villagers objected to Puran Singh
and Pritam Singh. In fact the dispute had taken place
between the villagers on one side and Puran Singh and
Pritam Singh on the other but the appellants have been
falsely implicated in this case. I am not ready to accept
this argument also. If Pritam Singh wanted to implicate
falsely some assailants there was no difficulty on his
part to name the persons who were his co-villagers.
Pritam Singh could very easily implicate them also in the
present case but he has not done so. Therefore, the
conduct of Shri Pritam Singh is very natural when he has
named four brothers and their 5th relation in the present
crime. It is the admitted case of the appellants that
they were neighbours. They must be aggrieved of the
alleged act of Puran Singh and Pritam Singh when they were
discharging the water from the hand-pump and the said
water used to accumulate in front of the house of the
appellants. The ball is in the court-yard of the
appellants. The present occurrence had taken place on the
Diwali day. It is the case of the appellants that Shri
Satpal had returned to the village for availing of leave from
the army. We know that in this part of the country
especially the villagers when they celebrate Diwali a lot
of liquor is invariably consumed. Under the influence of
liquor, this military man Shri Satpal could not tolerate
that water may be accumulated in frong of his house. He
must have abused Puran Singh and Pritam Singh and
thereafter, he mustered the strength by calling his close
relatives Jasbir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Mahipal Singh and
Bani Singh who appeared at the scene with deadly weapons.
The occurrence as unfolded by Pritam Singh has been
supported by two eye witnesses of the occurrence who were
attracted at the place of occurrence on hearing the Raula.
They have no axe to grind against the appellants. The
evidence of Pritam Singh and two eye witnesses is further
corroborated by the medical evidence unfolded by the three
doctors who firstly medically examined both the injured
and thereafter, the opinion of the expert Dr. Dewan who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of
Puran Singh, further strengthens the case of the
prosecution that blunt weapon like the reverse side of the
gandasi and lathis were used for the commission of the
present offence the preset occurrence is unfolded by a
stamped witness Shri Pritam Singh. An effort was made to
convince me that Mr. Sham Singh eye witness is an
interested witness being the brother of Puran Singh
deceased and he and Dharam Pal have been introduced as
false witnesses. I am not inclined to accept this
contention. Mere relationship is no ground to reject the
testimony of a witness. At the most I can scrutinise the
statement of Sham Singh with care and caution along with
Dharam Pal but in the present set of circumstances, the
presence of Sham Singh and Dharam Pal is very much
probable because it is the case of the prosecution that
there was some commotion before the actual assault.
Accused appeared at the scene and they were raising
Lalkaras. They objected to the discharge of the water of
the hand-pump and in these circumstances, some villagers
including the relations of the complainant party must have
come at he spot. If Dharam Pal and Sham Singh came at
the spot on hearing the Raula, there is no improbability
in it. The presence of these witnesses at about 8.00 P.M.
on a Diwali Day is most natural because it is always the
anxiety of every individual especially in this part of the
country, to remain present on Diwali day with his family
members. The present occurrence has also taken place in
the Gher of Puran Singh from where the blood stained earth
was lifted which is clearly suggestive of the fact that
the appellants acted as an aggressor.
23. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted in the
alternative that as the complainant party and the accused
party are neighbours and relatives, therefore,
leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. I am not
inclined to accept this contention. A human life has been
lost in this case. The act and conduct of the appellants
was such that it was not excusable. They were armed with
deadly weapons like Gandasi and lathis. The injured has
suffered the injuries on the vital parts of the body.
Therefore, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence which
has been awarded by the learned trial Court.
24. The resume of my above discussion is that the
present story of the prosecution has been proved not only
from the statement of the injured/stamp witness but also
from two natural witnesses who had the cause and occasion
to be present at the spot. Further the evidence of the
three witness is supported by the medical evidence
unfolded by three doctors. There was a motive on the part
of the appellants to commit the crime. Four are real
brothers and 5th is their relation. They joined heads.
They appeared at the scene with a concentrated mind. They
constituted an unlawful assembly. The object of the
unlawful assembly was to inflict the injuries.
25. It was also submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that at the most the offence under Section 304
Part-II is made out. I am not inclined to accept this
contention also. It is a case of multiple injuries.
There was no provocation from the side of the deceased or
injured witness. The injury on the person of the deceased
was on the vital part of the body. There was a fracture
of the skull which was found depressed at the time of the
post mortem examination. There was a repetition of blows.
All these circumstances make out a case under Section 304
Part-I because there was no previous enmity in this case.
By maintaining conviction and sentence of all the five
appellants their appeal is hereby dismissed.
26. Reverting to the revision of the complainant, I
am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has already
taken care of the miseries of the complainant party. The
amount of compensation if realised has already been
ordered to be paid to the complainant and the legal heirs
of the deceased Puran Singh. The sentence of 7 years, in
my opinion is not on the lower side for an offence under
Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I
do not see any merit in this revision and the same is
hereby dismissed.