Sucha Singh vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Out of the three injuries allegedly caused by the accused-petitioner Sucha Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''the petitioner''), the injury inflicted by him resulted into amputation of the leg of Gurnam Singh complainant (hereinafter referred to as ''the complainant''). Consequently, the alleged occurrence led to the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 326/323, IPC, as a sequel of which he was held guilty for the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 15-7-1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 326, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 323, IPC. Appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 15-7-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

The facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant was the son of Bhola Singh, who was Mahant of Dera Nirmala Sadhu of village Jeon Singh Wala. The complainant being son of Bhola Singh used to cultivate the land of Dera. Later on, the villagers demolished the dera and included its land in the property of Gurudwara. However, the said four killa of land still remained in possession of the complainant.

On 2-5-1987, the complainant had the turn of water. At about 6.00 a.m. when he had gone to irrigate his land, Kartar Singh his son and Raj Rani wife also came there along with tea for him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner armed with gandasa and a spade arrived there and exhorted that since the land became the property of Gurudwara and he having taken the said land from Chuhar Singh, President of the Gurudwara was in possession of the same, therefore, the complainant had no right to have the turn of water. The complainant, his son Kartar Singh and wife Raj Rani came forward to stop him from claiming his right but the petitioner after placing spade on the ground, inflicted gandasa blow on the outer portion near knee of left leg of the complainant. Again, he inflicted two gandasi blows from blunt side on the same left leg. On raising hue and cry by Kartar Singh and Raj Rani, the petitioner fled away. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabu, where he was medically examined; his statement was recorded by the police; case was registered; investigated and challan was presented against the accused.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 326/323, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. R.S. Sandhu (P.W. 1), Dr. Hem Raj Goel (P.W. 2), Gurnam Singh (P.W. 3), Kartar Singh (P.W. 4), MHC Bharput Singh (P.W. 5), C. Bant Singh (P.W. 6), HC Gian Singh (P.W. 7), Banarsi Dass Patwari (P.W. 8) and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar (P.W. 9).

When examined u/s 313, Cr. P.C. the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and further explained the occurrence in the following manner:

I am innocent. On the morning of 2-5-1987, I had gone with Kahi (Spade) for taking turn of water of the land of Gurudwara Sahib village Jeon Singh Wala along with Chuhar Singh, President and Darshan Singh son of Bhag Singh of my village. When we reached near the bridge of Khal (water channel) and I was about to take the turn of water, Gurnam Singh attacked me with Gandasi and caused injuries from the blunt side on his left ear, neck, right hand, little finger of right hand and I in self-defence gave spade blow from the blunt and sharp side to Gurnam Singh. Kartar Singh and Raj Rani were not present at the time of occurrence. The field of S.G.P.C. In front of the place of occurrence was lying vacant.

In defence, he examined Chuhar Singh (D.W. 1), President of Gurudwara of village Jeon Singh Wala and Dr. S.S. Malik (D.W. 2) who medico-legally examined the petitioner. In defence, he tendered into evidence copy of the order passed by Mr. P.K. Goel, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda Ex. DX, copy of the order dated 7-5-1997 Ex. DY, copy of the judgment and decree sheet dated 6-10-1965 Ex. DZ and Ex. DZ/1 respectively.

Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Appeal also failed. Hence this revision petition.

It was first contended that actually S.G.P.C. was the owner of the property and not the complainant, therefore, the complainant had no right to have the turn of water. The petitioner having taken the land from the President of Gurdwara Parbhandak Committee was well within his rights to prevent the complainant from taking the turn of water to which he had no right. For this, reliance was placed on the copy of the judgment and decree sheet dated 6-10-1965.

Having perused the said judgment, it transpires that the present complainant was not the party to the same, therefore, the said judgment is not binding upon him. Even otherwise, record does not reveal if possession of the land was taken from the complainant at any point of time. Though, Banarsi Dass Patwari (P.W. 8), has deposed that the possession of the land was delivered to Harnek Singh Attorney of S.G.P.C. through Rapat No. 25, dated 20-9-1978, yet his testimony does not find support from the Revenue Record. Perusal of khasra girdwari for the year 1986-87 Ex. P.W. 8/A and Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 Ex. P.W. 8/B transpire that the land was standing in the name of Gurudwara Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh of Village Jeon Singh Wala, but the same is in possession of the complainant. Note appended to Jamabandi Ex. P.W. 8/B further reveals that only symbolic possession of the said land i.e. 33 kanal 15 marla was given to Harnek Singh attorney of S.G.P.C. but the actual possession remained with the complainant. Banarsi Dass Patwari (P.W. 8) has also admitted during cross-examination that the complainant is in possession of the said land without payment of any lagan. It may further be observed that no document showing Chuhar Singh as President of Gurdwara Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Jeon Singh Wala and no document showing that petitioner took the land from Harnek Singh or any competent authority of S.G.P.C. or Gurudwara Sahib Sri Guru Gobind Singh Jeon Singh Wala has been brought on record. Thus, the petitioner being not in any way concerned with the land could not intervene in the turn of water, used by the complainant, therefore, he having raised illegal claim over the right of the complainant could certainly be termed as aggressor.

Now coming to the plea of right of private defence, it would be apposite to mention that the petitioner has not denied the occurrence in the case but according to him, on the day of occurrence, he along with Kahi (spade) had gone to take the turn of water for the land of Gurudwara which he had taken from Chuhar Singh President of the Gurudwara Sahib. He was accompanied by Darshan Singh of his village. When he was about to take turn of water, the complainant attacked him and caused injuries from blunt side, thus, he attacked the complainant in his private defence and caused injuries with sharp and blunt side of Kahi to the complainant.

Now in order to correctly appreciate the plea raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce the injuries suffered by both, petitioner and the complainant. Dr. Sanjiv Kumar (P.W. 9), Medical Officer, who medico-legally examined the complainant on 2-5-1987 observed the following injuries on his person:

20.5 cms x 5 cms x 6.5 cms incised wound on the interior lateral and posterior aspect of left leg 5 cms below the lower end of patella. Both the bones of the left leg are cut and fractured. Wound is bleeding on touching.

5.5 cms. x 2.5 cms contusion of pinkish colour on the lateral aspect of left thigh 15.5 cms above the knee joint.

4 cms x 2.5 cms pinkish contusion on the left side just above the iliac crest 4.5 cms posterior to anterior superior iliac spane.

He proved the MLR Ex. P9/A. The injury No. 1 was proved to be grievous in nature. He further opined that the injury No. 1 on the person of the injured Gurnam Singh could be dangerous if timely medical aid Would not have been given to him.

On the other hand Dr. S.S. Malik (D.W. 2) who had medically examined the petitioner on 7-5-1987, at about 11.45 a.m. observed the following injuries on his persons:

Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm, with scab formation on the left ear lobule.

Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm with scab formation on the left mastoid process.

Two abrasions 2 cms x 1/2 cm and 1 1/2 cm x 1/3 cms on the left lateral side of neck.

Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm with scab formation on the lateral aspect of right little finger.

He proved the copy of the MLR Ex. DW2/A and has given the duration of the injuries as 36 hours. During cross-examination he further admitted that the injuries on the person of the petitioner were superficial in nature and could be caused by a friendly hand and scab formation could occur within 24 hours.

As regards the injuries on the person of the complainant, the same have not been denied. The petitioner himself admitted in his plea that he caused the injuries to the complainant. Now the question arises whether the injuries on the person of the petitioner resulted on account of and during the same occurrence. These superficial injuries as opined by the doctor could be the result of friendly hand. Though, the petitioner got himself examined after 120 hours of the occurrence, yet, the doctor examining him had opined that the duration of the injuries was 24 hours. The injuries in the aforesaid circumstances could not be said to have been caused during the occurrence on 2-5-1987 in which the petitioner caused injuries to the complainant. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of arguments, if the injuries are treated to be suffered by the petitioner during the occurrence on 2-5-1987, even then, the injuries superficial in nature were not required to be explained by the complainant. It is further noticed that the petitioner caused three injuries on the leg of the complainant, out of which injury No. 1 was grievous. Dr. Hem Raj Goel (P.W. 2), who operated upon the injured testified from the bed-head ticket Ex. P2 that the injuries were inflicted in such a manner that both arteries of the leg of the injured were badly damaged, whereas, the injuries allegedly suffered by the petitioner were superficial in nature and could not possibly be suffered due to the same occurrence. Thus, it would be held that the complainant did not cause any harm, whereas, the petitioner caused such injuries which resulted into loss of his leg. The petitioner had no right over the turn of water but he was forcibly snatching the same from the complainant. Thus, plea set up by him is not available to him. Since the petitioner caused such injuries as badly damaged one limb of the complainant incapacitating him throughout his life, therefore, no leniency on the quantum of sentence could be extended to him. As an upshot of the above discussion, the revision petition being unmerited is hereby dismissed.