Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1251 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2005-12-08

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
JUDGMENT MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. By this common judgment, we will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 303-DB of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 470-DB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No. 1623 of 2002, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 20.12.2001 of the Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he convicted the appellants under Sections 302/323/324/452/148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Bhupinder Singh was convicted under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,OOO/-. In default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for causing injuries to Baldev Singh deceased and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was further convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Hardev Singh, Sushma and Machhla each and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, he was convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC for causing injuries to Machhla and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Gurpreet Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,OOO/-. In default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,OOO/-. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was further convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Hardev Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, he was convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for causing injuries to Sushma and Machhla each and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC for causing injuries to Machhla and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Harpreet Singh was convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,OOO/-. In default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC for causing injuries to Machhla and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Harpreet Singh was convicted under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,OOO/-. In default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Hardev Singh and Baldev Singh each and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Further, he was convicted under Section 324/149 IPC for causing injuries to Machhla and Sushma and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was further convicted under Section 323/149 IPC for causing injuries to Machhla and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement, Ex. P.N., given by Hardev Singh son of Ram Singh to Subegh Singh, SI/SHO of Police Station, Lalru on 15.1.1998 at General Hospital, Dera Bassi at 10.00 A.M. Hardev Singh stated that on 15.1.1998 at about 4.30 A.M., he was putting fodder in front of his cattle, after switching on the lights of his courtyard and the rooms of his house. His wife Sushma was removing dung. Bhag Singh son of Bachan Singh armed with a lathi , Bhupinder Singh son of Bhag Singh, armed with a kulhari , Gurpreet Singh son of Bhag Singh, armed with a sword, Harpreet Singh alias Happy son of Bhag Singh, armed with a sword, Kulwinder Singh son of Bhag Singh armed with a lathi and Ramalo wife of Bhag Singh armed with a lathi , all residents of Lalru, who were the neighbours of the complainant, came near the gate of his house and after dismantling the wall of bricks constructed with mud, entered the house of the complainant. Kulwinder Singh and Ramalo raised lalkara that the complainant along with his wife be caught hold of, so that they be taught a lesson, for closing the water spout. Thereafter, Bhupinder Singh gave a kulhari blow from its sharp edge side on the head of Hardev Singh, which hit straight in the middle of his head. Bhag Singh gave a lathi blow on the back of the complainant. Complainant and Sushma raised an alarm. Thereafter, Bhupinder Singh gave a kulhari blow from its sharp edge side on the head of Hardev Singh, which hit straight in the middle of his head. Bhag Singh gave a lathi blow on the back of the complainant. Complainant and Sushma raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm, Hardev Singh’s brother Ram Singh, Baldev Singh, his mother Kamla alias Kanta and sister-in-law Machhla woke up and switched on the remaining lights of the house. Within their sight, Gurpreet Singh gave a sword blow thrustwise on the left side of the chest of complainant’s brother Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh fell down on the ground with his face down. Gurpreet Singh gave two more blows with his sword on the back of his brother. Harpreet Singh then gave a sword blow on the back of the neck of Baldev Singh from its sharp side. Complainant’s wife Sushma came forward to rescue him. Bhupinder Singh gave a kirpan blow on the right arm, near the wrist on the inner side, of Sushma, as a result of which, her arm was badly cut. Gurpreet Singh and Harpreet Singh also gave sword blows to complainant Hardev Singh, which hit him on his abdomen, chest and left arm. Bhupinder Singh gave two kulhari blows from its sharp side to Machhla, on both her hands when she raised them, to save herself. Ramalo and Kulwinder Singh gave a number of lathi blows to Machhla. All the accused then inflicted injuries on the complainant’s mother Kanta alias Kamla. Complainant’s father Ram Singh had also entered the room and saw the occurrence. Nar Singh, the neighbour of the complainant, also received injuries with a sword on his palm, when he tried to rescue them. The accused party also received some minor injuries inflicted by the complainant party. Some neighbourers of the complainant then took all the injured to the hospital. The brother of complainant Baldev Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. The cause of grudge is that the house of the appellants is adjacent to the house of the complainant party. Appellants have installed a parnala (water spout) of their house towards the court- yeard of the house of the complainant. Water from the parnala discharges into the house of the complainant. A panchayat was convened about four months prior to the occurrence regarding the parnala and a compromise was effected. Appellants have installed a parnala (water spout) of their house towards the court- yeard of the house of the complainant. Water from the parnala discharges into the house of the complainant. A panchayat was convened about four months prior to the occurrence regarding the parnala and a compromise was effected. Accused party though had compromised the matter but were not happy with the compromise. Complainant Hardev Singh and his wife Sushma got treatment from the Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi. Mother of the complainant, namely, Kanta alias Kamla and his father Ram Singh were admitted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research (hereinafter called “PGI’) in an injured condition. Sister-in-law of the complainant, namely, Machhla, was admitted in Lalru hospital. 3. On the basis of this statement, Ex. PN, formal FIR Ex.PN/2 was recorded. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura on 15.1.1998 at 1.30 P.M. 4. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Dr. Surinder Mohan Virdi (PW1), Dr. Daler Singh (PW2), Dr. Kirpal Singh (PW3), Darshan Singh (PW4), Swaran Singh (PW5), Hardev Singh (PW6), Tarlok Singh, Constable (PW7), Kuldip Singh, Constable (PW8), Narsi Singh (PW9), Lal Singh, Constable (PW10), Raghbir Singh, Head Constable (PW11), Kanta alias Kamla (PW12), Dr. Sarabjit Singh Chhiber (PW-13) and Subeg Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-14). 5. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant party and that they are innocent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there is an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at about 4.30 A.M. on 15.1.1998. Statement of Hardev Singh Ex. PN was recorded at 10 A.M. in Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi. Special report reached the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura at 1.30 P.M. on 15.1.1998. No explanation has come forward from the prosecution witnesses or from the Investigating Officer as to the reasons of this delay. The injuries on the person of appellants- accused have not been explained by the prosecution. The genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. Narsi Singh (PW-9) and Pitamber PW were not present at the place of occurrence. They were introduced as witnesses at a later stage. Dr. The injuries on the person of appellants- accused have not been explained by the prosecution. The genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed. Narsi Singh (PW-9) and Pitamber PW were not present at the place of occurrence. They were introduced as witnesses at a later stage. Dr. Daler Singh PW2 has stated, in his testimony, that the injuries on the person of Narsi Singh (PW9) and Pitamber PW could be self suffered or could be as a result of a fall. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. The motive for the commission of offence has not been proved by the prosecution. As per document Ex. DG, DDR No.19 dated 17.9.1997 was recorded at Police Station Lalru, wherein it has been mentioned that the dispute between the complainant party and the appellants had been compromised with the intervention of the respectable of the village. Further, it has been mentioned in Ex.DG that the compromise was effected as appellant Bhag Singh had closed the Parnala (spout). Since a compromise was effected, the question of appellants injuring the complainant party did not arise. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that at the most, an offence under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. is made out. 7. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the FIR has been lodged promptly. Along with deceased Baldev Singh, seven other persons received injuries. All were taken to Civil Hospital, Lalru. Ram Singh and Kanta alias Kamla being in a serious condition, were referred to PGI Chandigarh. Raghbir Singh S.I./S.H.O. of Police Station Lalru (PW -11) reached Civil Hospital, Lalru at 9 A.M. Hardev Singh’s statement. Ex.PN was recorded at 10 A.M. Hardev Singh (PW6), Narsi Singh (PW9) and Kanta alias Kamla (PW12) are all injured eye witnesses. Medical evidence has corroborated the ocular account. (Injury No.2 on the chest of deceased Baldev Singh is the fatal injury. This injury has been attributed to appellant Gurpreet Singh, who was armed with a sword. Appellant Harpreet Singh also gave an injury to the deceased. Appellants had the common object to commit the murder of deceased Baldev Singh. In fact, the trial Court has taken a lenient view and should have convicted and sentenced all the appellants under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 9. Appellants had the common object to commit the murder of deceased Baldev Singh. In fact, the trial Court has taken a lenient view and should have convicted and sentenced all the appellants under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 9. The injured eye witnesses Hardev Singh (PW6), Narsi Singh (PW9) and Kanta alias Kamla (PW12) came into the witness box and narrated the prosecution version. All the witnesses stated that deceased Baldev Singh was given a sword (Ex.Pl) blow by appellant Gurpreet Singh on the chest which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as per the opinion of Dr. Surinder Mohan Virdi (PWl). Dr. Daler Singh (PW2) medico legally examined Machhla wife of Baldev Singh on 15.1.1998 at 9.10 A.M. He found three lacerated wounds and two incised wounds along with other injuries on the person of Machhla. Dr. Daler Singh (PW2) opined that injury Nos.l,2,3, 6 and 7 on the person of Machhla were with blunt weapons and injuries No.4 and 5 were with the sharp edged weapons. On the same day, Dr. Daler Singh (PW2) medico legally examined Narsi at about 12.20 p.m. He found an incised wound on the left middle finger just above wrist joint on his person. Further, he medico legally examined Pitamber at 1.30 P.M., on the same day and found one injury on his person. Dr. Kirpal Singh (PW3) medico legally examined Sushma wife of Hardev Singh on 15.1.1998 at 6.30 A.M. He found one incised wound on the right wrist joint on the person of Sushma. Dr. Kirpal Singh (PW3) medico legally examined complainant Hardev Singh (PW6) and found six injuries on his person, five of them being incised wounds and one being lacerated wound. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Chhiber, Senior Resident, Department of Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh (PW13) medico legally examined Ram Singh, who had been referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He found a stab injury, which was dangerous to life on the person of Ram Singh. From the nature of injuries on the person of the complainant party, it is clear that they were attacked after being taken by surprise and that also early in the morning. He found a stab injury, which was dangerous to life on the person of Ram Singh. From the nature of injuries on the person of the complainant party, it is clear that they were attacked after being taken by surprise and that also early in the morning. If they had been aware that they were going to be attacked by Bhupinder Singh armed with a Kulhari, Gurpreet Singh armed with sword (Ex.Pl) and Harpreet Singh armed with sword (Ex.P3), the complainant-party would have also prepared themselves with deadly weapons to defend themselves, which are easily available in the houses of agriculturists. Hardev Singh (PW6) in FIR Ex.PN/2 has stated, that the accused party also suffered some injuries at their hands, as they were defending themselves. This has been reiterated in the testimony of Hardev Singh (PW6), Narsi Singh (PW9) and Kanta alias Kamla (PW12). Blood stained earth was picked up from the place of occurrence i.e. within the house of Hardev Singh (PW6). We are of the considered opinion that the testimony of the injured eye witnesses i.e. Hardev Singh (PW6), Narsi Singh (PW9) and Kanta alias Kamla (PW12) is truthful and inspires confidence. The other injured eye witnesses were not brought into the witness box by the prosecution as it would have only added to quantity. They would have only repeated what Hardev Singh (PW6), Narsi Singh (PW9) and Kanta alias Kamla (PW12) had stated before the Court. 10. The First Information Report Ex.PN/2 has been recorded promptly. Occurrence had taken place on 15.1.1998 at 4.30 A.M. Statement Ex.PN/l of Hardev Singh was recorded at 10 A.M. by S.I./SHO Raghbir Singh. Formal FIR Ex.PN/2 came into existence on 15.1.1998 at 10.40 A.M. Special report reached the safe hands of J.M.I.C.,Rajpura on the same day i.e. on 15.1.1998 at 1.30 P.M. Seven injured persons from the complainant party plus deceased Baldev Singh were admitted in Civil Hospital, Lalru where they were medically examined. Two of the injured i.e. Ram Singh and Kanta alias Kamla had to be referred to PGI Chandigarh. Taking care of the injured took some time. The motive for commission of offence is amply proved. Document Ex.DG i.e. DDR No.19 dated 17.9.1997 recorded at Police Station Lalru amply proves that there was a dispute going on between the complainant party and the appellants regarding the Parnala (spout). 11. Taking care of the injured took some time. The motive for commission of offence is amply proved. Document Ex.DG i.e. DDR No.19 dated 17.9.1997 recorded at Police Station Lalru amply proves that there was a dispute going on between the complainant party and the appellants regarding the Parnala (spout). 11. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.303-DB of 2002 is dismissed. 12. In view of above discussion, Criminal Appeal No.470-DB of 2002 is also dismissed as the appellants have filed two separate appeals against the same judgment. Criminal Revision No.1623 of 2002 13. No appeal against the order dated 20.12.2001 for not convicting Bhag Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Harpreet Singh and Ramalo for substantive sentences under Section 302 IPC has been preferred by the State of Punjab. Criminal Revision is also dismissed.