Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1426 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-10-15

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Avtar Singh son of Teja Singh stands convicted under section 307 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months vide impugned judgment dated 24.4.1991 of learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. 2. Alongwith the present appellant, his father Teja Singh and one Younus son of Kaka were also sent for trial. However, they stand acquitted. No appeal has been preferred by the State against their acquittal. 3. The occurrence is of 24.2.1989. PW2 Gurbachan Singh is the injured in this case who made his statement on 26.2.1989 in the hospital before the concerned police official alleging therein that on 24.2.89 he was sitting at his tubewell. The present appellant alongwith one young person came there and the appellant allegedly gave knife blow on the right side of his chest, his left hand and on right side of his face near nose whereas the other person accompanied him had caught hold of him. On receipt of injuries he fell down unconscious. On an alarm raised by him Sukhdev Singh his son and Surinder Singh son of Achhar Singh were attracted to the spot who made an attempt to catch hold the appellant and his companion. He was got admitted in the hospital. 4. The motive projected by the prosecution is taht 8/10 days prior to the present occurrence. Teja Singh father of the appellant was cutting fodder from the field of Gurbachan Singh injured and he was stopped to do so. Teja Singh felt annoyed on this account and he had prompted his son (present appellant) and other person (Younus) to teach Gurbachan Singh a lesson. 5. On the basis of statement of Gurbachan Singh Ex.PD, the present case was registered at Police Station Amargarh on 26.2.89 at 11.15 AM as per FIR Ex. PD/2. Investigation was taken up by ASI Gurbachan Sigh PW8 who went to the spot, lifted the blood stained earth and put it is the sealed parcel. He had also taken into possession cover of the quilt and bed sheet stained with blood. The clothes of the injured were also taken into possession cover of the quilt and bed sheet stained with blood. The clothes of the injured were also taken into possession. He had also taken into possession cover of the quilt and bed sheet stained with blood. The clothes of the injured were also taken into possession cover of the quilt and bed sheet stained with blood. The clothes of the injured were also taken into possession. The rough site plan was prepared at the spot. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The appellant was arrested on 28.2.1989 and thereafter knife was recovered from him. The same was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. The other co-accused of the appellant were also arrested in this case. 6. The present appellant was charged under Section 307 Indian Penal Code whereas Younus his co-accused was charged under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. They were also charged under Sections 450 Indian Penal Code and 120-B Indian Penal Code. 7. PW1 Dr. P.K. Bansal who had examined Gurbachan Singh at 11.30 AM, found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound (stab wound) 2.1 cm x 1 cm on the right side of chest, 5 cm from mid line and 3 cm below the right nipple going deep with profuse bleeding present and crepitus was felt around the wound due to air in the sub-cutaneous tissue (Surgical emphysema) and there was cut in the underlying bone ends were felt due to fracture of rib. 2. Incised wound 1 cm x 1/3 cm on the right ali nose with fresh bleeding. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm on the back of knuckle of left middle finger muscle deep with clotted blood present on and around the wound." 8. Injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life whereas injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were simple in nature. 9. Gurbachan Singh has been examined as PW2. He has reiterated the prosecution version. PW3 Baljinder Singh is Halqa Patwari. Sukhdev Singh and Surinder Singh who have been examined as PW4 and PW5 respectively have also corroborated the statement of Gurbachan Singh. PW6 Harbhajan Singh is a witness before whom the knife was taken into possession in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the present appellant after his arrest. Balkar Singh PW7 is witness of the motive. ASI Gurbachan Singh has been examined as PW8. He is the investigating officer. There is no need of entering into detailed discussion regarding the investigation part as it has been mentioned in the preceding paras. Balkar Singh PW7 is witness of the motive. ASI Gurbachan Singh has been examined as PW8. He is the investigating officer. There is no need of entering into detailed discussion regarding the investigation part as it has been mentioned in the preceding paras. Affidavits of formal witnesses were also tendered by the prosecution alongwith report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PQ and of Serologist Ex.PR. 10. The defence taken by the appellant and his co-accused is of total denial. However, no defence was produced. 11. As stated above, the learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence has convicted and sentenced the present appellant whereas his co- accused have been acquitted. Hence, this appeal. 12. I have heard Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. B.K. Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire record. 13. Younus has been acquitted by the trial court on the ground that his identity is not established. Teja Singh father of the appellant has earned acquittal on the ground that there is no convincing evidence attracting section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 14. According to the prosecution all the injuries on the person of Gurbachan Singh are attributed to the present appellant. 15. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR. The occurrence is of 24.2.89 whereas the FIR was lodged on 26.2.89 by Gurbachan Singh and the inordinate delay in lodging the report has not been explained by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel this delay in itself is enough to discard the prosecution story in totality because a coloured version has been brought forward by the complainant side in so much so the witness of their choice have been imported in this case. In this context my attention has been drawn to some part of the cross-examination of ASI Gurbachan Singh. 16. In the alternative learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant at the time of occurrence was of the age of 18 years. He is a poor labourer and is only bread winner in the family and has to look after aged father, his other family members including a brother whose hands are amputated. 17. He is a poor labourer and is only bread winner in the family and has to look after aged father, his other family members including a brother whose hands are amputated. 17. Rebutting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned State counsel strenuously contends that the present appellant has no escape as the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve Gurbachan Singh, the injured witness of this occurrence who has specifically named the present appellant as the main assailant. 18. I do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is very clear from the testimony of Gurbachan Singh PW2 that he was present at this tubewell on 24.2.89 when Avtar Singh had come there and assaulted him with his knife. There cannot be any dispute about the identity of the present appellant. For the sake of repetition it may be said that participation of Younus has been doubted on account of identification as he was not named in the statement Ex. PA. There is a categoric statement to the effect that present appellant had caused two injuries with his knife on the person of Gurbachan Singh PW2. His statement is corroborated by PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW5 Surinder Singh. The recovery of knife Ex. P1 which is recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex. PL made by the appellant is also another factor to connect him with the commission of offence. According to the medical evidence, the injury in the chest has been opined to be sufficient to cause death if medical aid would not have been provided to Gurbachan Singh. 19. In my view even if there is delay of two days in lodging the report with the police, the same would itself not be a ground to throw the prosecution case in its entirety. The participation of the present appellant cannot be doubted on any count in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is, thus, negative being devoid of any merit. 20. In my considered view, the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is, thus, negative being devoid of any merit. 20. In my considered view, the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The conviction as recorded by the trial court for the charge under section 307 Indian Penal Code is, thus, confirmed. 21. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. In the impugned judgment of the judgment of the learned trial court, there is a reference to a fact that the brother of the appellant had got his both arms amputated while threshing wheat crop. The appellant was of the age of 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence which relates to year 1989 and by now a long 14 years have elapsed. 22. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of three years already awarded by the trial court is reduced to RI for one year. It is ordered accordingly. 23. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, it has been stated that the same stands deposited in the trial court itself. However, the order in regard to sentence of fine shall remain intact. 24. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. 25. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to all the quarters concerned for taking further necessary steps according to law. Appeal dismissed.