State of Punjab vs Gurbax Singh

M.L. Koul, J.

The brief facts of the case which have given rise to two criminal appeals and one revision petition preferred by the State, the convicts Milkha Singh, Kabal Singh, Gurbax Singh and Baldev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) and the complainant respectively are that on 31.8.1987 the deceased Didar Singh on the information of some lady that his son Rachhpal Singh was surrounded by the accused and the proclaimed offender Dhian Singh went towards the place of occurrence accompanied by his sons Chhinda Singh, Rattan Singh and Chanan Singh and found that his son Rachhpal Singh and the accused including the proclaimed offender were exchanging abuses with each other and his son was surrounded by them. Soon after the deceased reached on the spot, the accused Kabal Singh inflicted a Takwa blow on the head of the deceased and Gurbax Singh also inflicted Kandali blow on his head. The deceased fell down and the accused Gurbax Singh again caused two Kandali blows on the left side of his chest and the accused Baldev Singh inflicted a Sua blow from its handle hitting the left arm of the deceased. The accused Milkha Singh inflicted threefour Takwa blows on the deceased''s chest. The deceased''s son Chhinda Singh PW.3 tried to rescue his father and he too was attacked by the accused Kabal Singh who inflicted two Takwa blows on his head. Baldev Singh gave a Sua blow from its handle on his shoulder. The proclaimed offender Dhian Singh gave threefour dang blows on his left arm. Kabal Singh gave a Takwa blow on the head of Rattan Singh. The proclaimed offender also gave a dang blow on the left hand of Rattan Singh PW.4. The accused Milkha Singh inflicted a blow with the handle of Takwa on the head of Rachhpal Singh. The accused Baldev Singh inflicted a Sua blow from its handle on his forehead and Dhian Singh gave twothree dang blows on the forehead of Rachhpal Singh. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

On trial all the accused besides having been convicted and sentenced for different periods under Section 304II Indian Penal Code were also convicted and sentenced under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for two years each. They also have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well.

Aggrieved of the said order of conviction and sentence Criminal Appeal No. 483SB of 1989 has been preferred by the accused saying that they have been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court and deserve to be acquitted. Against that another Crl. Appeal No. 419DB(A) of 1990 has been preferred by the State praying for conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. To the same effect is Crl. Revision No. 1064 of 1989 preferred by the complainant.

Heard Mr. Randhir Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. M.L. Merchea for the accused, bestowed our thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.

The learned counsel for the accused Mr. Merchea vehemently argued that the trial Court has not at all discussed the ocular evidence recorded in the case and did not corelate the ocular and the medical evidence to satisfy herself in convicting and sentencing the accused as mentioned above.

In this regard we went through the judgment of the trial Court minutely and feel amazed and surprised to note that the trial Court has not at all tried to sift or weigh the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses recorded in the case. After narrating the F.I.R., she has observed in para 13 of her judgment that "Chhinda Singh PW.3 on whose statement the police was set into motion has narrated the occurrence as summarised above and I need not reproduce it as it would amount to mere repetition of the fact above." She has thereafter cursorily dealt with the evidence of the complainant PW.3 Chhinda Singh and least tried to sift, analyse and critically discuss the evidence of the witnesses for and against the prosecution. She has not at all corelated the medical and the other ocular evidence with regard to the broad circumstances of the case to formulate her judicial opinion for convicting the accused. She has tried to mould the F.I.R. one way or the other and has not discussed the evidence in a thorough cut manner as to what was the case and what was the effect of the evidence recorded in the matter. She did not create any link between the evidence of different witnesses so as to come to the final conclusion as to what role was played by the accused individually or jointly in the commission of the crime. For instance the complainant on crossexamination has deposed that his brother Rachhpal Singh PW.5 also received injuries on his person but he could not give the details. It appears strange that the complainant being an eyewitness to the occurrence and having received injuries himself when his father was killed and brother Rachhpal Singh was injured, does not know as to what injury was sustained by the deceased or his brother Rachhpal Singh and if so at whose hands. The trial Court did not make any attempt to corelate the ocular and the medical evidence recorded in the matter and as said earlier, cursorily disposed of the case without discussing the evidence in a proper manner.

The trial Court did not refer to any argument of the prosecution and the defence raised before her. In such circumstances the judgment of the trial Court is declared as nonest and the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused is set aside. The case is sent down to the trial Court under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

The accused who are on bail already are directed to cause their appearance before the trial Court on 10.3.1997 and the trial Court who is the successor of Mrs. Bakshish Kaur, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is directed to hear the arguments afresh in the case from the parties and discuss every aspect of the case comprehensively and dispose of the matter by passing a fresh judgment in accordance with law. The trial Court soon after receipt of the file shall hear the arguments in the matter within a week and give the judgment thereafter within 15 days. The trial Court while disposing of the case afresh shall not in any manner be swayed by any observation made by us in the disposal of the appeal. The file be sent directly to the District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar immediately who shall send it down to the Additional Sessions Judge who is the successor of Mrs. Bakshish Kaur.

Crl.A. No. 419DB(A) of 1990, Crl.A. No. 483SB of 1989 and Crl.R. No. 1064 of 1989 stand disposed of accordingly.