Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2759 (PNJ)

Major Singh v. State Of Punjab

2019-10-15

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide which the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: Name of Convict Offence Period of sentence Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine Major Singh 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for seven years Rs.2,000/- RI for six months 326 IPC RI for three years Rs.500/- RI for three months 452 IPC RI for two years Rs.500/- RI for three months 324 IPC RI for one year All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 03.10.2003 on receipt of information qua some quarrel between two parties at village Dhirowal, a police party headed by PW-10 SI Swaran Singh reached the spot. All the injured PW-1 Makhan Singh, complainant, PW-2 Darshan Kaur w/o Makhan Singh, PW-3 Baljit Kaur d/o Makhan Singh, were removed to the Civil Hospital, Batala for treatment. Appellant Major Singh Nihang, who too was found at the spot in an injured condition, was sent to the Civil Hospital, Harchowal for treatment. After the doctor had declared the complainant Makhan Singh- PW-1 fit to make a statement, his statement Ex.PA was recorded leading to the registration of FIR No.118 (Ex.PA/2) for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 IPC wherein he stated that on 03.10.2003 at about 10.00 am, appellant Major Singh, who was a co-villager, came in front of his house armed with a kirpan, one datar and one knife and exhorted him to come out. When he inquired from him what the matter was all about, the appellant inflicted a datar blow on the complainant hitting him on his left arm and another datar blow on his left hand. On a hue and cry raised by the complainant Makhan Singh, his wife Darshan Kaur - PW-2 and daughter Baljit Kaur - PW-3 were attracted to the spot and rushed to his rescue, who too were not spared by the accused appellant. The appellant inflicted a datar blow on the head of Baljit KaurPW-3 and another datar blow on the arm of Darshan Kaur - PW-2. The appellant inflicted a datar blow on the head of Baljit KaurPW-3 and another datar blow on the arm of Darshan Kaur - PW-2. Thereafter, the appellant continued inflicting blows with the datar on the shoulder, right hand, head and neck as well as the chest of the complainant Makhan Singh. While the occurrence was still on, brother of the complainant namely Sawarn Singh too was attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence apparently was that a couple of years prior to the occurrence in hand, at the time of marriage of the younger brother of the appellant, a quarrel had taken place as the latter wanted his estranged wife to be brought back and the marriage of the brother be solemnised only thereafter. The complainant Makhan Singh, who happened to be present at that time, had intervened and asked the appellant not to misbehave. Ever since then the appellant had been harboring a grudge against the complainant Makhan Singh. 3. The accused was arrested on 10.11.2003. On completion of investigation, the accused-appellant was charged for offences under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including Makhan Singh, complainant - PW-1, Darshan Kaur - PW-2, Baljit Kaur - PW-3, Dr. Charan Kamal Singh - PW-4, Dr. Jaswinder Singh - PW-5, SI Swaran Singh - PW-10. 5. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused-appellant in evidence were put to him under Section 313 Cr.PC to which he pleaded his innocence. He stated that a false case had been foisted upon him. In fact while passing by the house of the complainant Makhan Singh, his brother Sawarn Singh had taken him into a grip and dragged him inside the complainant's house. The complainant had then inflicted injuries on him with a kassi(spade). Sawarn Singh too had inflicted blows with the wooden log on different parts of his body and it was in his right of private defence that he was compelled to use his kirpan, which resulted in injuries on the complainant party. He further stated that as the complainant party wielded a lot of influence in the area, they had managed to implicate him in the instant case. 6. He further stated that as the complainant party wielded a lot of influence in the area, they had managed to implicate him in the instant case. 6. On the basis of the evidence led, the trial Court convicted the accused on various counts and sentenced him as already detailed above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the essential ingredients to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC were clearly missing. The motive for causing the alleged injuries on the complainant party was not made out in the absence of any cogent evidence. He submitted that the 12 injuries on the person of the accused out of which 6 were incised wound had gone unexplained by the prosecution and the true version of the occurrence had been brushed under the carpet as the complainant was an influential person. He further argued that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution were interested witnesses and related to each other and hence, their testimony could not be relied upon. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant by urging that the accused belongs to the same village yet not even a single witness including anyone from his family stepped into the witness box in support of his case. She has further urged that there was no occasion for the appellant to cross the house of the complainant as this was not the road usually taken by him to go to his house. Lastly, it has been urged that not only did the appellant had the motive to inflict injuries on the complainant in view of the past history of animosity between the parties but he had come to the spot fully armed with lethal weapons and launched the unprovoked attack on the complainant party. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the evidence and other material available on record. 10. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 307 IPC, which reads as follows: "307. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the evidence and other material available on record. 10. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 307 IPC, which reads as follows: "307. Attempt to murder-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned." The provisions of Section 307 IPC would be attracted if (i) there is an evil intention or knowledge to commit murder; and (ii) if there is an overt act done in pursuance to the same irrespective of the fact whether it culminated in murder or not, due to some intervening factors, independent of the will of the author of the crime. Once the injuries have been inflicted, it shall have to be discerned from the nature and seat of injuries whether the assailant intended to cause the death of the victim. Hence, it goes without saying that the prime ingredient which would have to be established is the intention with which the act was done and if the intention stands established, the nature of the act would be inconsequential. 11. In the case in hand, the intention on the part of the accused appellant is writ large not only from the nature of weapons used and which admittedly were recovered from the place of occurrence i.e. the house of the complainant party vide recovery memo Exs.-PW-10/C, PW-10/D and PW-10/G but also from the seat of injuries on the injured witnesses. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in fact dragged inside the house of the complainant Makhan Singh and inflicted blows by him and his brother Sawarn Singh and it was only thereafter in his right of private defence that the appellant was compelled to fend off the attack by using the weapon i.e. kirpan, which he was carrying at that point of time, the same does not appeal to reason. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the version of the accused is correct that he had in fact been dragged inside the house of the complainant party and inflicted blows with wooden log and kassi, it would not have been possible at all for the appellant and that too in an injured condition, to have been in a position to launch a retaliatory attack on not one but four persons from the complainant party, who admittedly received grievous injuries including an injury, which was declared dangerous to life. Had the complainant party been actually armed with lethal weapons as alleged by the accused-appellant, they would not have allowed the appellant to succeed in causing injuries on their person. The mens rea of the appellant is clearly discernable from the nature of weapons i.e. datar, knife and kirpan which he was carrying at the time of occurrence. In fact the accused appellant clearly comes across as the trespasser. The place of occurrence, the number of injured witnesses and the seat of injuries clearly indicates that the complainant party was left with no other option but to thwart the attack perpetuated on them by inflicting injuries on the appellant in their right to defence. 12. Thus, there is no manner of doubt and it stands proved from the surrounding circumstances that the act of the accused was of such a nature if it had not got frustrated by extraneous circumstances, it would have resulted in the death of complainant Makhan Singh. In the case in hand, the attack was frustrated when the wife Darshan Kaur and daughter Baljit Kaur rushed to the rescue of the complainant Makhan Singh and a little later when the brother of the complainant Sawarn Singh too was attracted to the spot. 13. As a sequel to the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 04.10.2004, which is a well reasoned one. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds/surety bonds stands cancelled. Necessary steps be taken to secure his custody.