Tara Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

These appeals are directed against the conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala on the accused in Session Case No. 30 of 1986 decided on 23.1.1987.

The case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.1985 in the morning the complainant Naranjan Singh had gone to his land and when he was returning, the accused armed with deadly weapons came to the house of Mango and raised a Lalkara that Mango and her son should be finished for ploughing the land. Then Naranjan Singh, the complainant asked the accused not to attack Mango and her son Mukhtiar Singh. Then the Ist accused Tara Singh exhorted the other accused that Naranjan Singh should be taught a lesson. Thereafter Naranjan Singh was inflicted injuries by the accused. Thereafter he was taken to the Civil Hospital Sultanpur Lodhi and he was admitted in the Hospital. On the receipt of the information about the admission of Naranjan Singh, the Sub Inspector of Police Major Singh went there and wanted to record the statement of Naranjan Singh, but the Doctor certified that he was not fit to make a statement. Again the Sub Inspector visited the Hospital on 9.9.1985 at about 8.15 A.M. and recorded the statement on the basis of which an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 326, 452 and 506, 148 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and took up the investigation and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all the accused.

On the basis of the material placed before the learned Magistrate, he committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. After committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 307 read with Section 149, 326 read with Section 149 I.P.C., Sections 324 and 324 (326 ?) read with Sections 149 I.P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined six witnesses and produced documents. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused did not examine any witness.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the accused for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and also convicted Tara Singh and Skattar Singh for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and also convicted Mann Singh, Arjan Singh and Karnail Singh for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and Mota Singh accused was convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each under Section 148 I.P.C. Tara Singh and Skattar Singh were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ each for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. While Mann Singh, Arjan Singh and Karnail Singh were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and Mota Singh accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, accused Tara Singh and Skattar Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 63SB of 1987 while the accused Karnail Singh, Mann Singh, Arjan Singh and Mota Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 98SB of 1987.

PW1 is the Doctor who examined Naranjan Singh on 8.9.1985 at about 3.10 P.M. and found injuries on his person. The prosecution also examined injured Naranjan Singh as PW2. He deposed that the accused came to the house of Smt. Mango and wanted to attack her and her son Mukhtiar Singh and then he interfered and asked them not to attack Mango. Thereafter the accused got enraged because of the intervention of PW2 and attacked him and caused injuries. There is evidence of Mukhtiar Singh PW6 who was stated to be present at the time of the incident. His evidence shows that there were proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between Mango widow of Assa Singh and Pargan Singh and others relating to the land in dispute. According to the prosecution, the motive for the offence was the dispute between Karnail Singh, one of the accused and others with Smt. Mango and that case was decided in favour of Mango. But that was not the reason for attacking the PW2.

There cannot be any doubt that Naranjan Singh received injuries on 8.9.1985. The evidence of PW1 clearly proves the injuries of Naranjan Singh. According to him, injuries No. 1, 5 and 6 were grievous in nature and all other injuries were simple in nature. But the point to be considered is whether the accused were responsible for causing injuries to Naranjan Singh PW2. As already stated, there was no dispute between Naranjan Singh and the accused. The only reason for attacking the PW2 was that he asked the accused not to attack Mango and her son. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that there was a land dispute between Mango and the accused. According to PW2 since he asked the accused that they should not attack Mango and her son, the accused caused injuries to him. His further evidence also discloses that Tara Singh gave a gandasi blow on the left side of his nose and Mann Singh gave a kirpan blow on the left side of his head and due to the injuries he fell down. When he raised his left hand, Skattar Singh accused gave two takua blows which hit his right hand. This evidence of PW2 is supported by the evidence of Smt. Mango PW3 who is said to be an eye witness. She deposed that there was a land dispute between the accused and herself and the accused came to their house and at that time Naranjan Singh PW2 was present at their house and tried to dissuade the accused from attacking her and her son. Thereafter Tara Singh gave a gandasi blow to Naranjan Singh on his nose and Mann Singh gave a kirpan blow hitting him on his left side of the head of Naranjan Singh and Karnail Singh gave a datar blow hitting the left side of the head of Naranjan Singh. On the receipt of the injuries, Naranjan Singh fell down. PW5 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of Naranjan Singh at the Hospital on 9.9.1985 at about 8.15 A.M. Thus the ocular evidence clearly supports the medical evidence. Thus it is clear that Tara Singh and Skattar Singh caused grievous injuries to Naranjan Singh (PW2). The learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. since the accused had no intention to kill Naranjan Singh and it is also clear from medical evidence that no injury was caused to Naranjan Singh (PW2) with an intention to cause his death, but the injuries caused by Tara Singh and Skattar Singh were grievous in nature according to the medical evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both of them were rightly convicted for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. I do not, therefore, find any ground warranting interference with their conviction under Section 326 I.P.C.

The evidence on record clearly shows that all the accused came to attack Mango and her son. Though their intention was to cause injuries to Mango and her son, they caused injuries to PW2 who was present at the spot. Therefore they were members of unlawful assembly. Therefore, all the accused were rightly convicted for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. The evidence on record also clearly shows that Mann Singh, Karnail and Arjan Singh inflicted injuries on PW2 Naranjan Singh. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly convicted them for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Mota Singh only caused a simple injury to Naranjan Singh. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted him under Section 323 I.P.C.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the convictions of the accused.

The learned Sessions Jude sentenced Tara Singh and Skattar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. Both of them have already undergone more than one year''s sentence. The incident took place in the year 1985. I do not think it expedient to send them to Jail after lapse of 15 years. Accordingly, I set aside the sentence imposed on them by the learned Sessions Judge and modify the same to the period already undergone. The appeal filed by them in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1987 is dismissed subject to the modification in the sentence and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The other accused namely Karnail Singh, Mann Singh and Arjan Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years. Mota Singh accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

Karnail Singh and Arjan Singh were aged about 60 years at the time of the commission of the offence which took place about 15 years back. They are now more than 75 years and Mota Singh was aged about 70 years at the time of the commission of the offence. They never thought of attacking Naranjan Singh (PW2). They came alongwith Tara Singh and Skattar Singh to attack Mango and her son because of the land dispute with them. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that they had no intention to attack PW2. The incident took place on a provocation. They had no personal interest in attacking PW2. I do not think that either it is expedient or just to send them to jail after lapse of 15 years. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is expedient and just to release them under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

I accordingly direct that the accused Karnail Singh, Mann Singh, Arjan Singh and Mota Singh be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on their furnishing personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 5,000/ each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala to keep peace and maintain good conduct for a period of one year.

Subject to the modification in sentences, Cr. Appeal No. 98SB of 1987 is also dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.