Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 629 (PNJ)

Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-06-01

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Gurnam Singh was held guilty under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Santokh Singh. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed. 3. On 29.11.1986, Santosh Singh along with Mithu Singh and Tarlok Singh had gone to the fields of Gurtej Kaur. Santokh Singh working as a siri of Gurtej Kaur. It was their turn to irrigate the land from the water outlet. Gurman Singh (now appellant) armed with a gun was present at the outlet. He protested to the taking of water from the outlet by Santokh Singh and fired in the air. When Santokh Singh tried to remove the plank facilitating the free flow of water to the fields of Gurtej Singh then Gurnam Singh opened fire hitting Santokh Singh on his right thigh. Santokh Singh on the receipt of the injury immediately fell down on the ground. Gurnam Singh and his nephew Gurmit Singh managed to escape from the spot. 4. A prima facie case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act was made out against Gurnam Singh, who was charged. He claimed trial as he pleaded not guilty to the charge. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon consideration of the prosecution evidence and the plea of the accused came to a conclusion that the accused had caused injuries to the injured which were dangerous to life, therefore, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced as above. 6. The appellants counsel was informed and the case was adjourned repeatedly but none had appeared on his behalf. Therefore, after hearing Mrs. Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, learned Assistant Advocate General and perusing the record, I proceed to dispose of this criminal appeal. 7. It is a case where the presence of the accused is admitted at the time of occurrence but the manner in which the occurrence has been highlighted by the prosecution, is totally denied. The accused has taken up a specific defence plea and in the exercise of his defence to protect his person and property, he had fired the gunshot. It is a case where the presence of the accused is admitted at the time of occurrence but the manner in which the occurrence has been highlighted by the prosecution, is totally denied. The accused has taken up a specific defence plea and in the exercise of his defence to protect his person and property, he had fired the gunshot. The plea taken up by the accused was not accepted by the trial Court. 8. Now, the question that survives which is limited and short one is whether the appellant has rightly exercised his right of defence to protect his person and property. In considering the question whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence, the Court has to consider the part played by the accused persons, gravity of the offence committed, the nature of the attack made by them and the place where the occurrence took place. 9. The accused has taken up a specific plea, which is reproduced as under :- "I am innocent. On 29.11.1986, I was watering my field at 10.53 a.m. Santokh Singh, armed with Gandasa, came there and he tried to release the water to which he objected and told Santokh Singh that he would cease watering the field at 10.58 a.m. as there is still time of five minutes but Santokh Singh immediately released the water. He tired to assault him with Gandasa and he opened fire in the air. When he again tried to attack him then in order to save himself, he fired another shot in order to protect his person and property." 10. This plea of the accused is not only corroborated by the defence evidence but also finds support from the testimony of prosecution witness, namely, Mithu Singh, PW2, who in cross-examination has admitted as under :- "When Santokh Singh tried to take the turn of the water, Gurnam Singh told him that his watch is ahead by five minutes and it is still his turn". 11. The factual position is further clear from the site plain Ex.PT. Santokh Singh, injured was standing at point A which is certainly in the field of Gurnam Singh and at that time Gurnam Singh was sitting at the Nakka of the water course from where he had allegedly fired. There is a big question mark as to why Santokh Singh had entered into the field of Gurnam Singh. Santokh Singh, injured was standing at point A which is certainly in the field of Gurnam Singh and at that time Gurnam Singh was sitting at the Nakka of the water course from where he had allegedly fired. There is a big question mark as to why Santokh Singh had entered into the field of Gurnam Singh. By doing so, he had invited trouble for himself by cutting short the time already allotted to the appellant for irrigating his field. 12. In the facts of the case, it is Santokh Singh, injured, who was the aggressor and he had without waiting for the turn of water to be over entered into the field of the appellant and released the water flowing from the outlet. Again, adverting to the site plan Ex.PT, it is clearly established that it was the injured who had entered the field of the appellant and that too armed with a Gandasa. Therefore, when he had tried to stop the water flowing to the field of the appellant and also tried to attack with a Gandasa, then the appellant had opened fire in order to defend himself as well as the property. Thus, it cannot be said that he in any manner had exceeded the right of self-defence. 13. It is also interesting to note that no blood-stained earth was collected from the spot. This shows a clever design on the part of the prosecution to conceal the material fact and also tried to take an advantage of the fact that Santokh Singh had not entered into the field of the appellant nor he was an aggressor. What was the occasion for Santokh Singh to enter the field of Gurnam Singh ? His field is not situated near the field of Gurnam Singh- appellant. In fact, three fields belonging to Gurnam Singh have been shown in the site plan Ex.PT, besides one field belonging to Anokh Singh. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution had not conducted a fair and partial (impartial ?) investigation in this case. Suspicion how (howsoever ?) strong cannot take place of proof and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 14. Considering the case of the prosecution from every possible angle, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Suspicion how (howsoever ?) strong cannot take place of proof and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 14. Considering the case of the prosecution from every possible angle, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In the result, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted. Appeal allowed.