Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1285 (PNJ)

Rikhi Ram v. U. T. Chandigarh

2000-10-31

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. On 31.12.1994 there was a minor quarrel between the parties to this criminal litigation which related to a D.D.R. entry Ex.PE and which was entered into a compromise the same day. Still on 1.1.1995, i.e. the next day of the previsous occurrence, around 1.30 P.M. Bhim Singh PW.5 came to his sisters house i.e. House No. 1167, Phase-I Ram Darbar Colony, where the deceased Gurdev and Dalbagh PW.8 were also present. They were sitting on a cot in a park in front of the said house and were basking in the sun as it was extremely winter season. Panjab Singh appellant-accused claimed himself to be a C.B.I. official and had created an impression that he was God father in the area. Panjab Singh remarked something derogatory to the Haryana women folk and, therefore, there was an altercation between the two sides. On hearing the alarm Rikhi Ram, Kuldeep Singh alias Sukka, Rajinder Kumar alias Billa, his friends Ranbir Singh. Pala Ram and Rajinder appellants also came to the spot. Panjab Singh took out a Lathi and inflicted a blow with the same on the head of Bhim Singh, Rikhi Ram caught hold of Bhim Singh and gave him fist blows and slaps. Dilbagh PW.8 and Rajinder sons of Bhim Singh and Gurdev Singh their relative came to the rescue of Bhim Singh. Ranbir Singh gave lathi blows on the head of Dilbagh and Rajinder alias Billa gave fist blows to Rajinder. Rajinder Kumar caught hold of Bhim Singh and Pala Ram accused caught hold of Gurdev Singh from his arms. It was at that time that Kuldeep Singh alias Sukka inflicted an iron Chapat (a cutting weapon) on the head of Gurdev Singh. As a result of which he fell down on the ground and become unconscious. Gurdev Singh was removed to PGI Chandigarh, where he was medico-legally examined vide M.L.R. report Ex. P.M. On receipt of telephonic message, SI Rajinder Singh PW.12 went to the spot where he was told that the injured had been removed to P.G.I. He went to P.G.I. There he moved an application Ex. PN for obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Gurdev Singh to make a statement. Vide opinion Ex.PN/1 he was declared unfit to make a statement. The Investigating Officer also met Bhim Singh and recorded his statement Ex.PE. PN for obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Gurdev Singh to make a statement. Vide opinion Ex.PN/1 he was declared unfit to make a statement. The Investigating Officer also met Bhim Singh and recorded his statement Ex.PE. After making his endorsement Ex.PE/1 he sent the same to the Police Station for registration of a case and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded at 4.30 P.M. on 1.1.1995. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.15 A.M. on 2.1.1995. He took into possession the blood stained shirt of Gurdev Singh Ex.P9 vide memo Ex.PO. He threafter went to the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PR of the scene of occurrence. He also lifted blood stained earth and a blood-stained shawl from the scene of occurrence vide memo Ex.PG. The Investigating Officer found Bhim Singh PW.3 and Dilbagh PW.8 to have received injuries and they were sent to General Hospital for medico-legal examination. He arrested Panjab Singh, Rikhi Ram, Ranbir Singh, Kuldip Singh and Rajinder alias Billa accused on 2.1.1995. Gurdev Singh succumbed to the injuries on 3.1.1995 at P.G.I. The investigation was taken over by Inspector Moti Ram PW.13. He converted the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code into offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He went to P.G.I. and prepared the inquest report Ex.PD and sent the dead body for post mortem. The appellants were tried under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 4.1.1995, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bhatia, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Gurdev deceased and found the following injuries : (1) An incised wound in the centre of the head slightly towards left and in the frontal region. The wound is 5 cm long and stitched with three stitches. On disSection of scalp. 20 x 30 cms clotted blood on the top and centre of the skull extending towards left and frontal. Underlying skull in left frontal region is fractured. On disSection of skull the membranes are congested and the brain is lacerated in frontal region and clotted blood covering whole of the blood. (2) Third, fourth and fifth rib on the left side were fractured. (3) Lungs full of pus on both sides. 3. Underlying skull in left frontal region is fractured. On disSection of skull the membranes are congested and the brain is lacerated in frontal region and clotted blood covering whole of the blood. (2) Third, fourth and fifth rib on the left side were fractured. (3) Lungs full of pus on both sides. 3. In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to damage to brain and intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex.PB is the copy of the post mortem report. 4. Dr. Munish Goyal PW.6 medico legally examined Mukesh Kumar injured on 31.12.1994 at 3.55 P.M. and found the following injuries : (1) A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep bleeding present on the left parietal region on the scalp. (2) Lacerated wound near left elbow posterior aspect 2 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep, bleeding present. The injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Ex. PH is the copy of the medico legal report. 5 On 1.1.1995. at 11.35 P.M. the same doctor medico legally examined Bhim Singh PW.5 and found the following injuries on his person : (1) Lacerated wound on the left parietal region 1 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep. No fresh bleeding. No history of uncousciousness or ENT bleeding. (2) Patient complained of pain in the back. No external mark of injury. 6. The injury was simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Ex. PJ is the copy of the medico-legal report. 7. On the same day, at 11.45 P.M. the said doctor medico legally examined Dilbagh PW.8 and found the following injuries on his person : (1) Lacerated wound in the midline in the scalp 0.5 cm skin deep. No fresh bleeding. No history of unconsciousness or ENT bleed. (2) Complains of pain in the hand, no external injury, no tenderness. 8. The injury was found to be simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Ex. PK is the copy of the medico legal report. 9. The plea of the defence was that in fact the complainant side attacked the accused side and since there were injuries on the other side, therefore they also brought a parallel challan. The learned trial Judge did not believe the plea of alibi taken by Rajinder alias Billa appellant. Ex. PK is the copy of the medico legal report. 9. The plea of the defence was that in fact the complainant side attacked the accused side and since there were injuries on the other side, therefore they also brought a parallel challan. The learned trial Judge did not believe the plea of alibi taken by Rajinder alias Billa appellant. However, believing the testimony of Bhim Singh PW.5 and Dilbagh PW.8, the learned trial Judge convicted all the seven appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; Kuldeep Singh appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Rikhi Ram, Rajinder alias Billa, Panjab Singh, Ranbir Singh, Pala Ram and Raj inder Kumar appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months; Panjab Singh appellant was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Kuldip Singh, Rikhi Ram, Rajinder alias Billa, Ranbir Singh, Pala Ram and Rajinder Kaur were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each; Ranbir Singh appellant was also convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Kuldip Singh, Rikhi Ram, Rajinder alias Billa. Panjab Singh, Pala Ram and Rajinder Kumar were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the seven appellants were convicted under Section 456 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 10. Against the order of their conviction and sentence Rikhi Ram, Rajinder alias Billa, Panjab Singh, Ranbir Singh, Pala Ram and Rajinder Kumar filed Crl. A. No. 385-DB of 1996 and Kuldip Singh alias Sukka filed Crl. A. No. 411-DB of 1996. However, all the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 10. Against the order of their conviction and sentence Rikhi Ram, Rajinder alias Billa, Panjab Singh, Ranbir Singh, Pala Ram and Rajinder Kumar filed Crl. A. No. 385-DB of 1996 and Kuldip Singh alias Sukka filed Crl. A. No. 411-DB of 1996. As both these appeal arise out of a common judgment, the same are disposed of by this judgment. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the statements of Bhim Singh PW.3. Dilbagh PW.8 and Rohtas PW.10 There is a detailed narrated story of the prosecution contained in the statement of Bhim Singh PW.5. This witness was allegedly sitting in front of his house in a park and Panjab Singh accused abused the persons of this locality who were from Haryana and remarked the following words : "Mein Haryaney Ki Bahu Betian Ko Apni Tang Ke Niche se nikaloga" 12. When he was advised not to pass such remarks, Panjab Singh rather became aggressive. This witness Bhim Singh PW.5. claimed that he lost his control and there was exchange of hot words. Panjab Singh shouted for his companions. This witness also shouted for his companions and according to this witness the injuries were inflicted by Panjab Singh, Ranbir Singh and Rajinder alias Billa and a Chaptat blow was ultimately inflicted by Kuldip Singh alias Sukka on the head of Gurdev Singh. In cross-examination he claimed that they also inflicted injuries on the person of the other side. This has come in evidence that out of the accused persons Rikhi Ram also received injuries and the medico legal report is Ex.DA. Similar is the versions of other witnesses, namely, Dilbagh PW.8 and Rohtas PW.10. 13. In such circumstances, it is the case that all the accused other than Kuldip Singh alias Sukka caused simple injuries and their case is covered under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the learned trial Judge convicted these accused for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was held that it was a case of free fight but still these persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the learned trial Judge convicted these accused for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was held that it was a case of free fight but still these persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a situation we are of the opinion that when there is a case of free fight it could not be said that at the same time it could be an offence which was committed because of a common object. There is no evidence on record to show that the fight took place inside the house of Bhim Singh PW. Rather the case of the prosecution is that the fight took place in front of the house of Bhim Singh PW.5 Thus all the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 456 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code framed against them. 14. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence as against appellant Kuldip Singh did not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rather it, at the most would be covered under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. It is also claimed that it was sudden fight and there was no intention on the part of Kuldip Singh alias Sukka to cause the death of the deceased. The occurrence was not pre-meditated and when certain remarks were allegedly passed, both the sides assembled by chance and the injuries were aimed individually on each other and by chance appellant Kuldip Singh alias Sukka who was armed with a Chapat gave a blow with the same on the heat of Gurdev Singh deceased. Looking into the entire circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that there was no intention with the accused Kuldip Singh alias Sukka to cause the death of the deceased but the blow was struck in the heat of moment. In such situation Kuldip Singh alias Sukka appellant was aware of the fact that the injury inflicted by him on the deceased was going to result into his death. So in fact the provisions of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code are attracted in the case rather than the provisions of Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So in fact the provisions of Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code are attracted in the case rather than the provisions of Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the appellants and acquit all of them for offence under Sections 302/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the conviction of Kuldip Singh alias Sukka and other appellants under Sections 323 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and in our view the ends of justice would be fully met with if their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. We order accordingly. So far as Kuldip Singh alias Sukka appellant is concerned, his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to that under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. He is stated to have already undergone imprisonment for a period of around six years. Therefore, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period which he has already undergone. 16. In view of the above discussion Crl. A. No. 411-DB of 1996 filed by Kuldip Singh appellant and Crl. A. No. 385-DB of 1996 filed by Rikhi Ram and other appellants are partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal party allowed.