Gurdeep Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Amar Dutt, J.—Gurdeep Singh and Karnail Singh are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 17.11.1994.

According to the prosecution case, there was a citrus (Kinoo) orchard belonging to Avtar Singh in the revenue estate of village Kailo, which had been leased out to one Surti Singh, resident of Sarangdev in District Amritsar. Surti Singh had employed Gurdeep Singh and Karnail Singh appellants to guard the same. They used to live in a thatched hut in the orchard. On 3.1.1994, at about 8.45 P.M., Kuldeep Singh PW7, whose land adjoins the orchard heard cries of MAR DITTA MAR DITTA coming from the side of the thatched hut. He and his brother Sampuran Singh rushed towards the spot and they found that Gurdeep Singh armed with a dang and Karnail Singh armed with an iron rod were causing injuries to a Bhaiya aged about 28/30 years. Within their sight, Karnail Singh gave a Saria blow on the head of Bhaiya while Gurdeep Singh gave a blow on his head with a dang. While beating up the Bhaiya, the appellants were proclaiming that they would teach him a lesson for plucking the citrus fruit from the orchard. As a result of the beatings, the Bhaiya fell down on the ground. Meanwhile, Anup Singh, Member Panchayat and Piara Ram, residents of Kailon were attracted to the spot. Kuldip Singh PW7 advised them to get the person, whom he had been able to identify as Raju, who used to work with Avtar Singh alias Pappu of village Kailon, treated from the Hospital and saying this he had returned to his house along with his brother. On the next day, on return from Dasuya, he came to know that Raju had died and had not been removed to the hospital by the accused. As some Bhiyas were present near the dead body, Kuldip Singh left for the Police Station, Hariana to lodge the FIR and in the way, he met SI Gurbachan Singh on the Hariana Bridge where he made a statement Ex.PJ, which he signed in token of its correctness. This statement was sent by SI Gurbachan Singh to Police Station, Hariana and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded. The Sub-Inspector himself accompanied by Kuldeep Singh went to the place of occurrence, where he found the dead body of Raju lying on a cot near thatched hut and there were injuries on it. He prepared inquest report Ex.PC and forwarded the dead body for postmortem along with his request Ex.PB. The accused were arrested by Inspector Lakha Singh on 12.1.1994 from an orchard in village Jalalpur. During interrogation, Gurdeep Singh made a disclosure statement Ex.PR about his having concealed a danda, the front portion whereof was broken, in the upper portion of the thatched hut and could get the same recovered. This disclosure statement was reduced into writing and in pursuance thereof the danda Ex.P2 was got discovered and taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PR. During his interrogation, Karnail Singh appellant had made a disclosure statement Ex.PS about his having kept concealed an iron rod in the Sarkandas near the Dhussi Bandh, close to the orchard of Avtar Singh. This too was got discovered and taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PS/1. On completion of the investigation, a challan was put in the court of the lllaqa Magistrate, who upon finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the same.

The Sessions Judge finding that prima facie case u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants, framed charges against them, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was then called upon to examine its evidence in support of its case.

To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Dr.J.S.Purewal PW1, Paramjit Singh Draftsman PW2, Arun Kumar MHC PW3, Constable Ram Asra PW4, Constable Satnam Singh PW5, Constable Jagjiwan Singh PW6, Kuldip Singh PW7, Anup Singh PW8, Darshan Singh PW9, SI Gurbachan Singh PW10 and Inspector Lakha Singh PW11.

When the statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for obtaining their explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case against them, both the appellants pleaded false implication due to suspicion. However, no evidence in defence was produced.

The trial Court, after hearing arguments, came to the conclusion that the statements of the eye witnesses cannot be brushed aside and relying on the same came to the conclusion that in view of the circumstances brought out in their testimony, the prosecution had been able to bring home a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as the case, according to it, fall within Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, it sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each. In default of payment of fine, both of them were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

I have heard Mr.T.P.S.Tung, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.Jayender S.Chandail, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance have perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants, at the time of the arguments, did not challenge the conviction but only prayed that taking into consideration the fact that the appellants have already undergone some portion of the sentence and their appeal has been pending since 1994, the case of the appellants be considered for reduction of sentence.

I have carefully considered the arguments and find myself unable to accept the same. From the statement of Dr.J.S.Purewal PW1, it is evident that on the dead body of Raju, the following injuries were found:-

(1) 2.5cm x 0.5, lacerated wound obliquely placed on the left side of the forehead starting from 1.5cm above the outer end of left eye brow running upwards and medically.

(2) Reddish brown abrasion 2.5cm x 2cm on the top of the left shoulder.

(3) Reddish brown abrasion 0.5cm x 0.3cm on the top of right shoulder.

(4) 10cm x 5cm reddish skin with blister formation on the back of left elbow.

Blisters contained fluid.

(5) 5cm x 3cm blisters filed with fluid 2cm, above injury No.4.

(6) Diffused swelling 5cm x 3cm on the left temporal region skin coloured.

In view of the above injuries, the doctor had given the following opinion:-

In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries to the skull and brain, which in the ordinary course of nature, were sufficient to cause death and all the injuries were ante mortem in nature.

In these circumstances, the appellants have already been given a benefit to which they may not have ordinarily been entitled to. Since no appeal has been filed by the State, it would not be possible for this Court to legally take up this issue for the enhancement of the sentence, in my opinion, no case for reduction of sentence is made out. The prayer for reduction of sentence, consequently, cannot be accepted and the appeal has to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.