Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1363 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Kaka Singh

2007-07-23

A.N.JINDAL, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 09.05.1997 passed by Sub Divn. Judicial Magistrate,Malout acquitting the accused of the offence under Sections 326,324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Factual matrix of the case, which culminated into trial, is that on 17.12.1993 at about 7 am Pritam Singh was returning to his house after answering the call of nature whereas Balwinder Singh was going ahead of him. When Balwinder Singh reached near the village school and the farm of Surjit Singh then respondent Kaka Singh and Beera Singh armed with Kapas alongwith Baljinder Singh armed with Gandsa and one Jarnail Singh were seen coming from the opposite side. On the extortion of Jarnail Singh, Kaka Singh inflicted a Kapa blow on the left hand of Balwinder Singh. Beera Singh inflicted a blow on the left knee and Baljinder Singh inflicted a gandasa blow from the reverse side of his head. In the meantime Joginder Singh also arrived there, consequently, all the respondents after causing more injuries to Balwinder Singh fled away with their respective weapons. The injured was shifted to Civil Hospital Malout, where he was medically examined. Motive behind occurrence is that Balwinder Singh and Kaka Singh were not eye to eye with each other due to an altercation which took place prior to the occurrence. 3. On the statement of the injured Balwinder Singh, FIR was registered; investigation commenced. It would be pertinent to mention here that during the occurrence Kaka Singh and Beera Singh had also suffered injuries which was also investigated and found to be false. The accused were arrested; the site plan was prepared and the MLRs of the injured were also prepared. The statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C were recorded. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged under Section 326, 324,323 read with Section 34 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to secure the conviction of the respondents, the prosecution examined Dr.G.S.Bhullar(PW1), Balwinder Singh injured(PW2), Mangal Singh, complainant (PW3), Baldev Singh, ASI(PW4) and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. 4. In order to secure the conviction of the respondents, the prosecution examined Dr.G.S.Bhullar(PW1), Balwinder Singh injured(PW2), Mangal Singh, complainant (PW3), Baldev Singh, ASI(PW4) and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further pleaded that actually on 17.12.1993 Kaka Singh and Beera Singh were standing in front of their houses, Joginder Singh armed with Gandasa, Balwinder Singh and Mangal Singh armed with Kapa came and assaulted them and caused them injuries. Joginder Singh also came there and he also caused injuries on the head of Beera Singh. An alarm raised by them attracted Thana Singh, Santokh Singh and Balwinder Singh (the complainant party) fled away. 6. In defence the respondents examined Dr.Charanjit Singh(DW1), Balwinder Singh(DW2), Thana Singh(DW3). 7. The trial ended in acquittal, hence this appeal. Though Balwinder Singh was injured on the side of the complainant party yet the two persons namely Kaka Singh and Beera Singh were also injured from the accused side but the witnesses have not explained how the accused came to suffer those injuries. The accused were put to dock for causing grievous injuries No.5 and 6 on the person of Balwinder Singh which read as under : "Incised wound 10 cms x 2 cms on the palmer aspect of left hand extendingtransversally from lateral to medial side through the middle of palm. Tendon of the index finger was cut. Underlying muscles were cut. Profused bleeding was present from the wound. Incised wound 5cms x 1cms on anterior and lateral aspect of left knee joint in its upper part. Underlying tendon was cut. Fresh bleeding was present." 8. It transpires that injuries were grievous for reason that tendon of the index finger was cut and underlying muscles were cut. The cut of the tendon or the muscles does not fall in the purview of any of the clauses of Section 320. No specific opinion was recorded by the Doctor as to on what basis, he declared these injuries as grievous in nature. 9. Though the occurrence took place on 17.12.1993 yet the FIR reached the Court three days thereafter, i.e. on 20.12.1993 at 10.45 am but no explanation to this delay reaching the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate has been given by the complainant. 10. 9. Though the occurrence took place on 17.12.1993 yet the FIR reached the Court three days thereafter, i.e. on 20.12.1993 at 10.45 am but no explanation to this delay reaching the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate has been given by the complainant. 10. Although lalkara has been attributed to Jarnail Singh yet no part has been attributed to him as per first information report. Though it is in evidence that corresponding cut of the pajama worn by the injured was there but the said pajama was not produced in the Court. Even the blood stained earth was not lifted from the spot so as to confirm about place of occurrence. 11. While exercising the powers under Section 378 the interference in the Trial Court judgment is inevitable only if the view taken by the Trial Court was against the records and on the basis of no evidence. If the two views could be possible, then the view taken in favour of the accused is to be accepted. Hence the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.