Gurmej Singh vs State of Punjab

M.R. Sharma, J. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1983 rendered by the learned Session Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

Gurmej Singh Appellant U/S 302, I.P.C. Imprisonment for life.

Raja Singh who was also sent up for trial along with the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Wazir Singh was the owner of 51/2 Killas of land in village Hardoch. This land had been in cultivating possession of Bawa Singh and his son Chanan Singh deceased, for the last 18/20 years or so. Gurmej Singh appellant had purchased this land from Wazir Singh. However, his efforts to eject Bawa Singh and the deceased from this land did not fructify. On December 29, 1982, the appellant let loose his cattle in the fields which were in possession of Bawa Singh. Surjit Kaur P.W., wife of the deceased, protested and told him that he had no business to destroy their crops. There was a wordy altercation between Surjit Kaur PW.3 on the one side and the appellant and his acquitted brother Raja Singh on the other. While altercating with each, they reached near the house of the deceased. At this stage, the deceased came out and the appellant caused him a blow with sua Ex. P.1. The deceased was taken in a tempo to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. Dr. K.S. Babbar P.W. 1 sent information to Police Station, Sardar Gurdaspur, about the arrival of the injured person in the civil hospital. Upon this A.S.I. Balkar Singh P.W. 7 went there and recorded the statement Ex. PQ of the deceased at 10.45 AM on December 30, 1982. The police were of the view that no cognizable case had been made out. However, the condition of the deceased became serious on 7.1.1982 whereafter the police registered a case under Sections 307/323, I.P.C. against the appellant and Raja Singh, the acquitted accused. The deceased passed away on 8.1.1983. Therefore, the case was covered into one under Section 302/34, I.P.C.

The autopsy on the deadbody of Charan Singh was conducted by Dr. K.S. Babbar P.W. 1 on 9.1.1983, who observed as under :

"1. Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 8 cm on front of lower part of chest on the left side.

Two small stitched wounds on lower part of back of left chest.

On Dissection :

Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were communicating with the thoracic cavity. A small subcutaneous haematoma was preset around injury No. 1. Pleura was torn corresponding to injury. About 500 ml. of blood was present in the thoracic cavity. Lower lobe of left lung was collapsed. Larnyx and trachea wee healthy. Lungs were congested and were healthy. Heart was healthy and few petchial hemorrhage present on the pericardiam. Right chamber of the heart was full of blood and left was empty. Peritoneum was healthy and congested. Mouth pharynx and oesopheus stomach were healthy. Stomach intestines were healthy and contained small amount of digested material. Large intestines were healthy and contained small amount of faecal material. Liver, spleen, kidneys were healthy and congested. Bladder was healthy and empty. Organs of generation healthy. Muscles, bones and joints were healthy.

In my opinion, cause of death in this case was asphyxia which was due to tetanus, which was due to the injury on the chest and this was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antemortem in nature."

At the trial, the prosecution relied upon this medical evidence as also the ocular version given by Surjit Kaur P.W.3 and Chanan Singh P.W.4. The learned trial Judge accepted this evidence for convicting and sentencing the appellant, as indicated earlier.

In this appeal by the convict, we have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.

Surjit Kaur P.W.3., widow of the deceased, has given a detailed statement about the occurrence. She could possibly not have left out the real culprit and falsely implicated the appellant in this crime. Her statement further stands corroborated by the evidence of Chanan Singh P.W.4 as well as the medical evidence.

In fact, the learned defence counsel was somewhat luke warm about his submission that Gurmej Singh appellant was not guilty at all. He only emphasized that the offence does not fall under section 302, Indian Penal Code. In this connection, the learned counsel has cited before us Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1982 SCC (Cri) 256, wherein for a single blow the accused was convicted under section 304, PartII Indian Penal Code and awarded seven years'' rigorous imprisonment; Jagrup Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1982 C.L.R. 301, wherein for a single blow the accused was similarly convicted and sentenced; Randhir Singh alias Dhire v. State of Punjab, 1982 C.L.R. 313, wherein conviction was recorded under section 304, PartII Indian Penal Code, and the accused awarded five years'' rigorous imprisonment, for causing a single blow, and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1980 CAR 403 (SC), wherein also for a single blow the accused was convicted under section 304, PartII, Indian Penal Code, and awarded seven years'' rigorous imprisonment.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State relied upon Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 465 and Narayanan Satheesan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1977 S.C. 2308, wherein the accused person had been awarded imprisonment for life even when one fatal blow had been caused to the deceased.

After going through all these authorities and in view of the circumstances that the appellant had purchased land which was in the possession of an old tenant, he let this cattle loose in this land and himself stood nearby when protest was made, and caused a blow with sua Exhibit P1 in the chest of Chanan Singh deceased after prolonged altercation we convert his conviction from under section 302, Indian Penal Code, to one under section 304, PartII, Indian Penal Code and award him rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 25000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. The total fine, if realised, shall be paid to the widow of the deceased as compensation.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.