Kaka Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present appeal has been filed by Kaka Singh, Surjit Singh son of Kaka Singh and Didar Singh son of Kaka Singh. They were nominated as accused in a case FIR No. 38 dated 07.06.2000 registered at Police Station Jhunir under Sections 307/325/323/34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, who, vide his judgment dated 18th September, 2001, acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. However, Kaka Singh was substantively convicted u/s 325 IPC and both the other accused, i.e. Surjit Singh and Didar Singh were convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Furthermore, Didar Singh was substantively held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 325 IPC, whereas the other accused namely Kaka Singh and Surjit Singh were convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the trial Court sentenced the Appellants as under:

S. No. Name of the convict U/Section Sentence

Kaka Singh 325 IPC Two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

-do- 325/34 Two years RI and to pay a fine of IPC Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

Surjit Singh 325/34 Two years RI and to pay a fine of IPC Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

-do- 325/34 Two years RI and to pay a fine of IPC Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

Didar Singh 325/34 Two years RI and to pay a fine of IPC Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

-do- 325 IPC Two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-or in its default to further undergo RI for three months.

Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of a statement Ex.PB made by Darshan Singh son of Joginder Singh on 29th May, 2000 to ASI Sukhdev Singh of Police Station Jhunir. It was stated by the complainant Darshan Singh that they were five brothers. Eldest brother Karnail Singh had died. Their younger brother, namely Nachhatar Singh was residing separately. The relations of Nachhatar Singh with his wife were strained and she was living in her parental house. Nachhatar Singh had taken two killas of land on mortgage from Kaka Singh. Nachhatar Singh had died about 11 months ago and the land was being cultivated by the complainant Darshan Singh PW-2. Appellant Kaka Singh, along with his family members, was restraining Darshan Singh PW-2 from cultivating the said land. A Panchayat was convened, wherein Darshan Singh and others had agreed to surrender the land on payment of the mortgage money. Kaka Singh also refused to pay the money. This being a grudge, occurrence had ensued on 29th May, 2000 at about 8.00 a.m. Darshan Singh PW-2 and his brother Leela Singh PW-3 were going towards their fields on their tractor, when they were waylaid by the accused. Surjit Singh son of Kaka Singh was armed with a Gandasa, Didar Singh was armed with a Kasauli and Kaka Singh was armed with a Kasia. When Darshan Singh dismounted from the tractor, Didar Singh and Kaka Singh, armed with a Kasauli and a Kasia respectively, gave blows on the head of Darshan Singh, due to which he fell down on the ground. Leela Singh raised an alarm, upon which all the accused decamped from the spot. They also caused damage to the tractor. Injured Darshan Singh was taken to the hospital by his paternal uncle Teja Singh.

Darshan Singh was medico legally examined by Dr. Asha Kiran, PW-7 on the same day, i.e. 29th May, 2000 at about 9.00 a.m. She found following injuries on the person of Darshan Singh:

A lacerated wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm present on left parietal bone 10 cm from upper border of left pinna and 4 cm from midline. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray.

A lacerated wound of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on left parietal bone 4 cm anterior to first injury and 6 cm from midline. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray.

There was weakness of right arm. No sensation felt by the patient in whole arm. Kept under observation.

In cross-examination, Dr. Asha Kiran PW-7 stated that injury No. 3 was not an injury, but it was only described as weakness of the arm. It was stated that the weakness of arm in medical terms is described as monoplegia and on account of swelling of the nerve of brain, it can occur. Thus, it can be concluded that injury No. 3 was an after-effect and a result of injuries No. 1 and 2.

Injuries No. 1 and 2 have been attributed to Appellants Kaka Singh and Didar Singh. No specific injury has been attributed to Appellant Surjit Singh. He is only convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, whereas Kaka Singh and Didar Singh have been substantively convicted for offences punishable u/s 325 IPC. In the present case, only Darshan Singh was injured. He has appeared as PW-2 and has proved on record that injuries were caused by Appellants Kaka Singh and Didar Singh. The testimony of Darshan Singh PW-2 has been duly corroborated by the evidence of his brother Leela Singh PW-3. No injury has been attributed to Appellant Surjit Singh in the FIR Ex.PK. Darshan Singh had suffered only two injuries, which are attributed to Appellants Kaka Singh and Didar Singh. Hence, as a matter of abundant caution benefit of doubt is granted to Appellant Surjit Singh and he is acquitted of the charges.

Prosecution has conclusively proved the case against Appellants Kaka Singh and Didar Singh. They have caused severe injuries on the head of Darshan Singh PW-2, which resulted into weakness of his right arm and no sensation could be felt by him in his whole arm. Therefore, the injuries, even though fall u/s 325 IPC, are serious in nature. The trial Court has sentenced both of them for two years rigorous imprisonment.

Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate, appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Appellants, has stated that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 2000. The Appellants have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for about 10 years.

Considering this argument as a mitigating circumstance, sentence awarded upon Appellants Kaka Singh and Didar Singh u/s 325 IPC is reduced from two years to one-and-a-half year rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.

With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.