AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—By this common judgment, Criminal Appeal No. 1732-SB of 2002 preferred by Nirmal Singh and others and Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2003 preferred by Satbir Singh shall be decided together.
All the four appellants assailed the judgment dated 23.10.2002 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur whereby appellants Nirmal Singh and Surjit Singh were held guilty u/s 307 IPC and accused Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur were held guilty u/s 307/34 IPC. Accused Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur were further held guilty u/s 324 IPC and accused Nirmal Singh and Surjit Singh u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced as under:
Nirmal Singh Under Section 307 IPC - R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Under Section 324/34 IPC - R.I. for one year.
Surjit Singh Under Section 307 IPC - R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Under Section 324/34 IPC - R.I. for one year. Balbir Singh
Under Section 307/34 IPC - R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
Under Section 324 IPC - R.I. for one year.
Mohinder Kaur Under Section 307/34 IPC - R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.
Under Section 324 IPC - R.I. for one year.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
These four appellants had caused injuries to Satbir Singh. Satbir Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2003 with a prayer that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is inadequate and same ought to be enhanced.
In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 5.11.2000 at 9.30 A.M. Statement Ex.PA of Satbir Singh PW1 was recorded in Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur by ASI Madan Lal on 6.11.2000 at 2.10 P.M. On receipt of statement Ex.PA, formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur. In his statement Ex.PA, Satbir Singh had stated that he was an agriculturist. He had taken on lease 35 Kanals of land, in which Kinoo orchard was existing, from Baldev Singh son of Dalip Singh. The lease deed was executed by Jagtar Singh son of Baldev Singh on the basis of power of attorney. The period of lease was from 1997 to 2006. On 5.11.2000, he along with his nephew Varinderjit Singh were irrigating the Kinoo plants, when Balbir Singh @ Balli armed with a daat, Nirmal Singh son of Dalip Singh armed with a gandasa and Mohinder Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh armed with a Datri which is to be used for cutting the sugarcane crop arrived at the spot. All the accused immediately on their arrival removed the belt of the engine. On the protest raised by the complainant, accused stated that they had purchased the land and they would take possession of the same forcibly. An altercation ensued. Mohinder Kaur raised a lalkara that Satbir Singh should be liquidated. Then Nirmal Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. Nirmal Singh repeated another blow on the head. Thereafter Surjit Singh caused two injuries on the head of Satbir Singh with the daat. Complainant fell down on the ground. At that time Balbir Singh @ Balli gave two daat blows below the left knee of the complainant. Mohinder Kaur thereafter gave two blows, one below the left knee and the other on the left leg above the knee. Complainant raised a noise `Mar Ditta Mar Ditta'' which attracted Lashkar Singh son of Mehar Singh at the spot. On arrival of the witnesses, accused decamped from the spot. Complainant became unconscious. The accused had a grudge that complainant had taken the land on lease from Baldev Singh but Nirmal Singh etc. wanted to take possession of the same forcibly. After the fight, conveyance was arranged and nephew of the complainant got admitted the complainant in Civil Hospital, Gardiwala where he was given the first aid. Thereafter, the complainant was referred to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. On the basis of the above statement, FIR was investigated and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.
After commitment, the case was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The charges were drawn against the appellants on 21.4.2001. The charge stated that Surjit Singh and Nirmal Singh on 5.11.2000 at 9.30 A.M. in furtherance of common intention to cause death of Satbir Singh caused injuries to him which attracted offence u/s 307 IPC, whereas co-accused Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur were charged u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh were charged substantively for offence u/s 324/34 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Complainant Satbir Singh appeared as PW1 and reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Harbans Singh, Baldev Singh and Nirmal Singh are brothers. Baldev Singh and Harbans Singh were living abroad. Harbans Singh had executed the power of attorney in favour of Nirmal Singh. However, complainant stated that it was not in his knowledge that power of attorney given by Baldev Singh was got cancelled on the ground that Jagtar Singh was misusing the same. Complainant stated that he was in possession of the leased land but had not brought the lease deed in Court. Complainant further stated that who had attested the lease deed was also not known to him. The witness admitted that Harbans Singh had filed a suit at Dasuya against Jagtar Singh and Balbir Singh. He further stated that suit was decided against him. He deposed further that Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur had not caused any injury on his left shoulder but the injuries on his head were caused by Surjit Singh and Nirmal Singh. This witness further stated that though he disclosed to the doctor at the time of preparation of the medico legal report that there was a fight at the spot, yet he did not disclose the names of the accused to the doctor.
Lashkar Singh PW2 corroborated the testimony of PW1 to the extent that accused reached at the spot along with the weapons and caused injuries to the complainant. In cross-examination, this witness stated that at the spot Satbir Singh was lying unconscious. Satbir Singh was removed to his house in the village. The witness further stated that he was not aware as to which hospital Satbir Singh was taken from the village.
HC Gulzar Singh PW3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PD.
Dr.Saroop Singh PW5, Medical Officer, Civil Dispensary, Gardiwala medico legally examined injured Satbir Singh on 5.11.2000 at 10.55 A.M. and found the following injuries on his person:
An incised wound measuring about 6 x 1 in size present on the center of head. Slightly curved and deep to bone. Fresh bleeding present. Kept under observation for X-ray.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x 0.5 cm in size present on the interior part of center of head, bone deep, fresh bleeding present. Advised x-ray.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x0.5cm present on left interior occipital region vertical in direction and kept under observation.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x 0.5 cm in size present on posterior part of center of head vertical in direction, bone deep. Fresh bleeding present.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x 1 in size present on left side of left knee joint deep to bone and horizontal in direction. Fresh bleeding was present.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x 0.5 cm in size present on left knee joint below the patella on its lateral side and fresh bleeding present. Horizontal in direction.
An incised wound measuring about 2 x 0.5 cm in sized present on below the knee joint. Horizontal in direction. Fresh bleeding present.
An incised wound measuring about 4 x 1.5 cm in size present on left leg on the upper part and horizontal in direction 7 above the left knee joint. Fresh blood is seen. Clothes have been wetted with blood.
According to this witness, injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 on the person of Satbir Singh were declared dangerous to life. This witness further stated that police had filed an application for recording statement of the witness on 5.11.2000. However, the injured was declared unfit to make the statement.
PW4 Dr. Gurbachan Singh stated that on 5.11.2000, he had examined Satbir Singh at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and the patient was discharged from the hospital on 25.11.2000.
Constable Dalbir Singh PW6 had taken the blood stained soil and clothes to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.
PW7 Dr. Raj Kumar stated that in CT Scan report, fracture of occipital bone of right side of Satbir Singh was detected.
PW8 ASI Madan Lal had investigated the case. This witness in cross-examination stated that Satbir Singh had shown certain documents to him to prove his possession over the land. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.
Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. Relelvant portion of the statement of accused-appellant Nirmal Singh is apt to reproduce as under:
Q. Anything else you want to say?
A. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, I was in possession of Kinnov orchard standing on the land measuring 134 kanals 12 marlas. When the complainant alongwith Balwinder Singh trespassed into the land and inflicted injuries to us, I also got stay order dated 14.6.99 from the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dasuya. I was the attorney of Harbans Singh, who had purchased the share of his brother Baldev Singh vide sale-deed dated 21.10.99 and it was specifically mentioned in the sale-deed that the possession has been delivered and complainant party was not in possession of the land on 5.11.99. The alleged Kabuliat-nama is a forged document prepared by Jagtar Singh to usurp the property. The Ld. Distt. Judge, Hoshiarpur held that the said lease-deed regarding the share of the land of the plaintiff was sought to be created and used by the appellant Satbir Singh in connivance with Jagtar Singh, whose power of attorney had already stood cancelled. Even the distance of Kinnov orchard was not mentioned in the land in question. The appeal filed by Satbir Singh was dismissed by the Ld. Distt. Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his judgment dated 7.8.01. My wife Mohinder Kaur was not present at the spot.
Other accused pleaded false implication and stated that possession of the land was with them.
Mr. H.S.Gill, Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has stated that Nirmal Singh appellant was brother of Baldev Singh and Harbans Singh. The land was jointly owned by the brothers. It is further stated that it has come in evidence that power of attorney executed in favour of Jagtar Singh was cancelled. Mr. Gill has further submitted that sale deed was executed and the family of Nirmal Singh appellant came into possession of the land. He further contended that the complainant''s assertion that he was in possession of the land has not been accepted by the civil court.
The findings of the civil court are not binding upon the criminal court. Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifically states that only judgments pertaining to matrimonial, probate, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction are relevant. Otherwise, both civil and criminal courts operate in their independent sphere and each Court has to appreciate the evidence led before that Court.
Mr. Gill has also argued that there was a delay in lodging the report.
Counsel for the State assisted by Mr. J.B.S.Gill, counsel for the complainant have supported the findings of the trial Court and sentence awarded to the appellants.
After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that there are certain features of this case which require attention of this Court. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 5.11.2000 at 9.30 A.M. Statement of injured Satbir Singh was recorded on 6.11.2000 at 2.10 P.M. The occurrence was witnessed by Lashkar Singh PW2. The injured was taken to the hospital by his nephew Varinderjit Singh. No effort was made by Varinderjit Singh and Lashkar Singh to report the matter. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they had not reported the matter to the police. Lashkar Singh after witnessing the occurrence had gone to his house. Varinderjit Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. Even if Satbir Singh was declared unfit to make the statement, Lashkar Singh PW2 and Varinderjit Singh eye witnesses were available for lodging the report. There is a delay of about 29 hours in lodging the report. Satbir Singh had received eight injuries. All the injuries were inflicted with one weapon. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were on the head. These injuries are attributed to Nirmal Singh and his son Surjit Singh. The injuries on non vital part below the knee are attributed to Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur. At the time of occurrence, Balbir Singh was a young man of 19 years and Mohinder Kaur was the only lady of the family. Only one kind of weapon has been used. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that delay of about 29 hours was used for consultations and deliberations to inflate the number of accused. Therefore, a boy in his teen age and lady of the house were also named as accused. Lashkar Singh PW2 has not attributed any specific injury to these accused. In these circumstances, the Court is to put the guard to sift the grain from the chaff. The possibility of false implication of Balbir Singh and Mohinder Kaur is not ruled out. Hence, the benefit of doubt is granted to them and they are acquitted of the charges. However, the conviction of Nirmal Singh and Surjit Singh appellants is maintained.
At this stage, Mr. Gill has submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 2000.
Taking into consideration the protracted trial of about 10 years, the sentence awarded to appellants Nirmal Singh and Surjit Singh is reduced from 3 years to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of.
Since the sentence awarded to the appellants No. 1 and 2 has been reduced from 3 years to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and appellants No. 3 and 4 have been acquitted of the charge, there is no merit in the revision petition preferred by the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed.