Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 645 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh

2001-07-02

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
JudgmentJudgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Crl. A.No. 290-DBA of 1991 and Crl. R.No. 767 of 1991 as they arise out of the common judgment passed by the trail Court. 2. Jaswant Singh accused-respondent was running a video parlour within the area of Police Station, Qadian. On the other hand Avtar Singh P.W.5 also got a licence to run a similar video parlour. It was being claimed that there was a professional rivalry between the two sides. The respondents-accused were not allowing the complainant party to run the video parlour and causing hindrance in smooth running of the parlour of Avtar Singh P.W.5. On 16.8.1987, around 10.00 P.M. both sides came armed with Gandasis and sharp edged weapons and resorted to violence. In the course of occurrence Jaswant Singh respondent- accused inflicted a Datar blow to Avtar Singh on his nose, Arvinderpal Singh gave dang blows hitting on the left side and middle of the head of Avtar Singh. Kulwinder Singh @ Pappu inflicted dang blows to Avtar Singh which landed on the left side of chest, thighs, right leg, right foot, right shoulder and neck as a result of which Avtar Singh fell down. Harbans Singh stepped forward to rescue Avtar Singh and he was given Gandasi blow by Jasbir Singh on his left leg, as a result of which Harbans Singh fell down. Arvinderpal Singh accused gave dang blows in the middle of forehead and right arm of Harbans Singh and Bittu accused gave dang blows in the middle of the forehead and right arm of Harbans Singh and Bittu accused gave dang blows on the fingers of right hand, left arm and right knee of Harbans Singh. Goldi accused gave a dang blow on the right leg of Harbans Singh (sic) stepped forward to rescue Harbans Singh but he too was inflicted dang blows by Goldi on his head, back side of the head and lips. Bittu accused gave dang blows to him on his left arm, right arm, index finger of right hand and on the upper side of left thigh. Gurdeep Singh also received injuries at the hands of Kulwinder Singh and Bittu accused in an attempt to rescue Charanjit Singh. After the occurrence the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Qadian, where they were medico-legally examined. Gurdeep Singh also received injuries at the hands of Kulwinder Singh and Bittu accused in an attempt to rescue Charanjit Singh. After the occurrence the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Qadian, where they were medico-legally examined. Harbans Singh deceased ultimately died in the hospital on 25.8.1987. This attack was allegedly opened by the respondent-accused persons at the house of Avtar Singh P.W.5. Avtar Singh P.W. 5 made his statement Ex, PM before ASI Chanchal Singh P.W.8 at 5.40 A.M. on 17.8.1987 and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PM/2 was recorded at 6.20 A.M. on the same day. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 9.05 A.M. on 17.8.1987. A cross-case was also registered against the complainant party. ASI Chanchal Singh P.W.8 investigated the case, arrested the accused and got recovered weapons of offence from them in pursuance of their disclosure statement. 3. In this trlal, it was proved that injured Avtar Singh P.W.5 received as many as 11 injuries on his person as mentioned by Dr. S.S Johal, P.W.2 in the medico-legal report Ex. PB. Out of these 11 injures only one injury i.e. injury No. 4, which was on the nose, was caused by a sharp edged weapon and the rest were simple in nature. Charanjit Singh P.W.6 received seven injuries on his person out of which injury Nos. 4 and 5 were grievous three simple injuries on his person. 4. Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal P.W.3 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Harbans Singh deceased on 26.8.1987 at 3.30 P.M. and found the following injuries :- (1) A partially healed scabbed abrasion 2 cm x 1-1/2 cm on the middle of fore-head 8 cm above the root of nose. (2) Septic wound 7 cm x 2-1/2 cm bone deep on the postero lateral aspect of right fore-arm upper one third. On dissection underneath both bones were fractured. (3) A partially healed wound 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on the dorsal aspect of web in between right index and middle finger of hand. (4) A partially healed wound 3-1/2 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the inner aspect of middle of right hypothenar eminence of hand. On dissection underneath bone was fractured. (3) A partially healed wound 4 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on the dorsal aspect of web in between right index and middle finger of hand. (4) A partially healed wound 3-1/2 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the inner aspect of middle of right hypothenar eminence of hand. On dissection underneath bone was fractured. (5) Septic wound 3 cm x 2 cm on the dorsal aspect of left fore- arm lower one third. On dissection underneath both were fractured. (6) A yellowish contusion 8 cm x 5 cm on the frontal aspect of right knee joint. On dissection underneath petalla and lower end of femur was fractured. (7) Septic wound 4 cm x 2-1/2 cm on the front of right leg upper one third. On dissection underneath both bones were fractured. (8) A yellowish contusion 7 cm x 4 cm with partially healed wound measuring 1 cm x on front of left legal middle one third. On dissection underneath both bones were fractured. 5. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries with fractures described above which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. PK is the copy of the post- mortem report. 6. Avtar Singh P.W.5 received 11 injuries on his person. Injury No. 4 which was declared grievous was caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining with blunt weapons. The remaining injuries were simple in nature. Charanjit Singh P.W.6 received 7 injuries out of which two injuries were grievous and remaining were simple in nature. Similarly Gurdip Singh P.W.4 received one grievous and two simple injuries. 7. On the other hand, so far as the injuries to the accused persons are concerned, it may be mentioned that Jaswant Singh respondent-accused had atleast 8 injuries out of which injury Nos. 3 and 7 were grievous and remaining were simple. The injuries on the person of Jasbir Singh were seven in number. All the injuries were, however, simple in nature inflicted by sharp and blunt weapons. Arvinder Pal Singh received as many as seven injuries out of which injury No. 5 was grievous. 8. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents accused on the ground that the injuries on their person had not been explained by the prosecution. 9. All the injuries were, however, simple in nature inflicted by sharp and blunt weapons. Arvinder Pal Singh received as many as seven injuries out of which injury No. 5 was grievous. 8. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents accused on the ground that the injuries on their person had not been explained by the prosecution. 9. It is, however, true that if the whole of the occurrence is viewed looking to its all aspects at one glance simultaneously it would be apparent that the attack is claimed to have been opened by Jaswant Singh at the house of Avtar Singh P.W.5 but ASI Chanchal Singh P.W.8 has clearly stated in his solemn affirmation that the blood which had fallen on the ground at the place of occurrence was lifted by him just at a distance of 15 feet from in front of the door of the house of Jaswant Singh. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PX showing the scene of occurrence at point "A" and place of occurrence is shown just 8/9 from the house of Jaswant Singh. Site plan Ex. PN prepared by Suresh Chander Draftsman P.W.7 shows that the occurrence took place some where near the house of Jaswant Singh. So by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the occurrence took place at the house of Avtar Singh P.W.5. This witness has not come to the Court with clean hands. If one goes through the statement of Gurdip Singh P.W.4, an alleged eyewitness, he claimed that accused party was not allowing Avtar Singh to run the video parlour. In such a circumstance it was for Avtar Singh to have gone and attacked the accused party and not vice versa. In the given situation, the statement of the three injured eye witnesses cannot be believed that the respondents-accused were aggressors. The accused side received a large number of injuries. Out of them many are grievous in nature. It is, however, correct that one of the persons from the complainant side died in the occurrence but if the respondents were attacked at their place they had a right of self-defence and the judicial pronouncement go a long way to interpret the situation in favour of the respondents in the light of the provisions contained in Sections 97, 99 and 100 of the Indian Penal Code. The true genesis of the occurrence and the motive with which the occurrence got initiated should have been explained by the complainant side and to keep them back and to conceal the same from the Court has to be interpreted that the complainant side did not come to the Court with clean hands and the injured witnesses, namely, Gurdip Singh P.W.4, Avtar Singh P.W.5 and Charanjit Singh P.W.6 must have explained as to in what manner the accused persons received injuries. Mention of one side version only does not help the prosecution. Injuries on the person of the accused must be explained when they claim that they were the victims and other side was the aggressor. Reference in this regard may be made to authorities of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 and Jagdish Singh v. State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423. 10. In the given situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Both the appeal and the revision are dismissed.