Didar Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Inderjit Singh complainant (herein referred as ''the complainant'') suffered 13 injuries on various parts of his body, allegedly at the hands of the accused-appellant Didar Singh (herein referred as ''the accused'') and Tarlochan Singh (non-appellant). Consequently, they were prosecuted under Sections 307/324/34 IPC, however, vide judgment dated 1.3.2000, the accused Tarlochan Singh was acquitted of the charges, whereas, accused Didar Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 324 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 323 IPC.

The case was registered on the statement made by the complainant, stating that he is Home Guard Employee. On 19.3.1994, after his duty hours were over at S.P. Head Quarter, Mansa, at about 9.00 p.m. he proceeded for his residence while riding on his bicycle. When he reached near the hospital of Dr. Manjit, near the plot of Baldev Singh Tailor Master, he found the accused Didar Singh and another person armed with kirches. The complainant was given a push and he fell down on the ground. Didar Singh gave him two kirch blows, one on the right leg and the other on lower portion of the knee and more kirch blows were given on his left leg knee and one of right side of eye and on the right knee. Tarlochan Singh also inflicted injuries on the right thumb, right arm, right ear, left elbow and left shoulder with the kirch respectively. Alarm raised by him attracted Harbhajan Singh (PW3) who was following him on his bicycle.

The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused Didar Singh had illicit intimacy with the wife of the complainant to which the later objected, therefore, both the accused caused injuries to him.

On the aforesaid statement Ex.PC, case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, the accused were challaned and charged accordingly.

In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Parshotam Goyal (PW1), Inderjit Singh complainant (PW2), who died before he could be tendered for cross examination. Harbhajan Singh eye witness (PW3), Paramjit Kaur (PW4), Sardara Singh Ex-S.I. (PW5), Munish Verma (PW6) and Dr. G.S. Hara (PW7).

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded their false implication in the case.

The trial ended in conviction of Didar Singh, whereas, Tarlochan Singh accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

At the very outset, Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction and has urged for taking a lenient view in the matter.

Even otherwise, on perusal of the record, though the prosecution has not been able to make out the case against the accused u/s 307 IPC, yet, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was guilty of the offence u/s 324/323 IPC. The evidence reveals that the complainant was beaten so badly that no part of his body was spared. Dr. Parshotam Goyal (PW1) observed the following injuries on the person of the complainant:

Reddish contusion swelling 3 cms x 3 cms on the right parietal region above the right pinna. X-ray was advised and was kept under observation.

Lacerated wound 4 cms x 1 cm on the lateral part of right eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised xray and was kept under observation.

Two linear abrasions 1 cm each, 1 cm apart on the dorsum of left hand. Oozing was present.

Abrasion 2 cms x 1 cm on the back of left elbow. Oozing present.

Two parallel reddish contusions 6 cms x 1 cm, 1 cm apart on the medial aspect of right forearm, vertically oblique.

Swelling of the right thumb, with two abrasions 1 cm x 1/2 cm, 2 cms apart from the dorsal side, Oozing present. Xray was advised.

Reddish contusion 4 cms x 1- 1/2 cms on the front of right knee joint. X-ray was advised.

Incised wound 1 cm x 3/4 cm on the front of right leg 5 cms below tibia tuboracity, vertical, fresh bleeding was present. Deep up to bone, no cut present in the pent. Xray was advised.

Incised wound 1- 1/2 cms x 3/4 cm on the front of right leg, 5 cms below injury No. 8 vertical, fresh bleeding was present, deep up to bone. No cut was present in the pent. X-ray was advised.

Reddish contusion 5 cms x 1- 1/2 cms on the front of left knee joint. X-ray was advised.

Abrasion 2 cms x 1 cm on the front of left leg oozing present.

Reddish contusion 6 cms x 1- 1/2 cms on the back of left shoulder joint.

Reddish contusion 7 cms x 1- 1/2 cms on the back of left side of chest.

After x-ray examination, Dr. Parshotam Goyal (PW1) opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature.

Though, the complainant was not available for cross examination due to his death before he reached the stage of cross examination, yet, Harbhajan Singh (PW3) an eye witness, has withstood the test of cross examination. Having scrutinized his statement, it transpires that despite the lengthy cross examination upon him, the accused could not shatter his credibility, reliability or trustworthiness. He as well as the victim were the employees of the Home Guard Department. He was serving as supervisor at Police Station City, Mansa. Though, his duty hours were up to 5 p.m., yet, he being the supervisor must be coming after around, therefore, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. He has specifically stated that he was following the complainant on his separate bicycle. Inderjit Singh complainant was thrown from the bicycle and thereafter, he was inflicted injuries. Bicycle was lying near the injured at the time of infliction of the injuries and the same was taken into possession by the police. He has specifically stated that the occurrence lasted for 10 minutes and none else came there due to night. Though, he has stated that the accused did not cause him any injury, but since the accused were annoyed against the injured complainant Inderjit Singh, therefore, only he (complainant) was their target. The FIR in this case is prompt one and the injured was admitted in the hospital forthwith i.e. at 9.45 p.m. and the FIR was got registered by the complainant at 10.05 a.m. therefore, no delay could be detected in lodging the FIR. Though, motive could not be proved as the court was handicapped in going through the statement of the complainant, yet, in view of the testimony of Harbhajan Singh (PW3), having been supported by the medical evidence and other documentary evidence, motive pales into insignificant.

No bias, animus or enmity has been alleged against the Harbhajan Singh for implicating the accused in the case. As such, the judgment passed by the trial court qua the conviction of Didar Singh accused stands confirmed.

The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since the injuries on the person of the complainant were found to be simple in nature and in view of the pendency of the proceedings since long, benefit of probation could be extended to him.

As a matter of fact, initially, on account of the 13 injuries caused by the accused to the complainant, he was tried under Sections 323/324 read with Section 34 IPC, yet, on seeing of the evidence, the court could reach the conclusion that the accused Didar Singh was guilty of the offence u/s 324 IPC, therefore, in these circumstances, the conviction was recorded u/s 324 IPC.

Keeping in view the nature of the injuries, I do not deem it appropriate to release the appellant on probation, yet, keeping in view the protracted proceedings pending since 19.3.1994, it would be in the fitness of things that some leniency on the quantum of sentence could be shown.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months under Sections 324 and 323 IPC without alteration in the sentence of fine.