CRIMINAL APPEAL None on 16 July 1998

1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.

Present:Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

-.-

MOHINDER PAL, J.

This appeal has been filed by appellants Gurnam Singhand Satnam Singh against the judgment of conviction dated16.7.1998 and the sentence order dated 17.7. 1998 passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, convicting andsentencing them under Section 307 and 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). For the former

offence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each,in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for threemonths and for the latter offence they were sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for three months. However, both thesentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to runconcurrently.

Bachan Singh (co-accused of the appellants) died duringthe trial and criminal proceedings against them, accordingly,stood abated.

In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.5.1993at about 9.30 P.M, Gurnam Singh and Jeet Singh were quarrellingwith each other as there was some dispute amongst them aboutrent. Hearing their noise, Hukam Singh and Pala Singh went there.Hukam Singh asked them as to why they were quarrelling with eachother. Upon this, Bachan Singh (died accused) caught hold ofHukam Singh. Appellant Gurnam Singh gave a `Gandasa' blow toHukam Singh on his neck. Appellant Satnam Singh gave a`Lathi' blow to him. On receipt of the said injuries, Hukam Singhfell down. The accused also gave `Lathi' blows to Ajit Singh, whosustained multiple injuries on his body. Pala Ram raised an alarmattracting Jagdish, Ramesh and some other persons to the spot.They save the victims from the clutches of the accused. Theaccused, while leaving the spot, threatened Hukam Singh thatthey would kill him whenever they got a chance to do so. Theinstant F.I.R was registered on the basis of statement made by Pala

Singh before the police.

During investigation, weapons of offence i.e `Lathi' and`Gandasi' were recovered from the possession of accused-appellantsSatnam Singh and Gurnam Singh, respectively, in consequence oftheir disclosure statements.

Dr. P.K. Nigam (P.W.6), who had medico-legallyexamined injured Hukam Singh, on an application moved bythe accused, opined that the possibility could not be ruled outthat the injury suffered by Hukam Singh on his neck could havecaused his death. He further opined the possibility of the saidinjury having been suffered by Hukam Singh with `Gandasa'(Exhibit P.1) could not be ruled out.

After completion of investigation, report under Section173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented by thepolice against the accused in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate,who committed the case to the Court of Session.

The accused were charged for the offences punishableunder Sections 307, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code.They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. R.K. Tandon(P.W.1), who had medico-legally examined injured Jeet Singh,Sub Inspector Badan Singh (P.W.2), an eye-witness Pala Ram(P.W.3), injured Hukam Singh (P.W.4), Zile Singh (P.W.5), Dr.P.K. Nigam (P.W.6), who had medico-legally examined injuredHukam Singh, Patwari Daya Nand (P.W.7), an eye-witnessJagdish (P.W.8), who turned hostile, another eye-witness Ramesh (P.W.9), who also turned hostile, Assistant Sub Inspector Zile Singh(P.W.10), injured Jeet Singh (P.W.11), who also turned hostile andDr.Sunil Bajaj (P.W.12).

After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statementsof the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in which they denied the prosecution allegationsand pleaded false implication. However, no evidence was led bythem in defence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the records of the case.

Complainant Pala Ram (P.W.3), injured Hukam Singh(P.W.4) and Zile Singh (P.W.5), witness to the recoveries ofweapons of offence from the accused in consequence of thedisclosure statements made by them, have completely supportedthe prosecution story, as unfolded in the earlier part of thejudgment. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of theaccused. It is also worth-mentioning here that there was noenmity between the accused and complainant Pala Ram (P.W.3),injured Hukam Singh (P.W.4) and Zile Singh (P.W.5); meaningthereby question of false implication of the accused did notarise. Pala Ram (P.W.3), Hukam Singh (P.W.4) and Zile Singh(P.W.5) had no axe to grind against the accused. The accusedhad some dispute with Jeet Singh (P.W.11) regardingtenancy/rent and they were quarrelling with Jeet Singh. Theoccurrence had taken place in front of the house of Hukam Singh(P.W.4). Pala Ram (P.W.3), brother of Hukam Singh, had come to

meet Hukam Singh. Both Pala Ram and Hukam Singhintervened to end the quarrel. However, appellant Gurnam Singhstruck a `Gandasa' blow to Hukam Singh on his neck andappellant Satnam Singh gave multiple injuries with `Lathi' to JeetSingh. Jagdish (P.W.8) and Ramesh (P.W.9) had also beenattracted to the spot. However, Jagdish (P.W.8), Ramesh(P.W.9) and Jeet Singh – injured (P.W.11) did not support thecase of the prosecution and were got declared hostile by thePublic Prosecutor. Jagdish (P.W.8), Ramesh (P.W.9) and JeetSingh – injured (P.W.11) were cross-examined by the PublicProsecutor. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the momentthe witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is notdependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to holdthe law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is establishedon record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led bythe prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesseswho appeared to have been won over by the accused does not atall affect the prosecution case. Learned counsel for theappellants argued that Pala Ram (P.W.3), Hukam Singh (P.W.4)and Zile Singh (P.W.5) are real brothers and, therefore, theirstatements cannot be relied upon being interested witnesses.However, merely because of their relationship inter se, therestatements cannot be brushed aside in case they otherwise inspireconfidence of the Court. Zile Singh (P.W.5) is a witness to therecoveries of `Gandasa' and `Lathi' from the accused inconsequence of their disclosure statements. Hukam Singh (P.W.4),

having received a dangerous to life injury on his neck, is astamped witness of the prosecution. His version is supported byPala Singh (P.W.3), who had witnessed the occurrence which tookplace in front of the house of Hukam Singh (P.W.4). Pala Singh(P.W.3) is a natural witness. Statements of Pala Singh andHukam Singh get complete corroboration from the medicalevidence furnished by Dr. R.K. Tandon (P.W.1), who had medico-legally examined injured Jeet Singh and Dr. P.K. Nigam(P.W.6), who had medico-legally examined injured Hukam Singh.Dr. R.K. Tandon (P.W.1) had observed eight injuries on theperson of Pala Singh, which were multiple abrasions on the leftchin, leg, thyroid cartilage, lower half of neck, front of chest,right upper part of the abdomen, back of right elbow joint, bothknee joints, on the middle of lower back at the level of iliaccrest. As mentioned above, Dr. P.K. Nigam (P.W.6) had medico-legally examined injured Hukam Singh. He had observed awound on the neck of Hukam Singh. Vertebral bone was visiblein the depth of the wound. Probing was not done due to risk of lifeof Hukam Singh. The wound was present on the back of neck onboth sides of mid line being 7 cms on left side of mid line and rest ofthe wound on the left side. It was obliquely placed. There wasfresh bleeding present in the wound. On an application movedby the accused, Dr. P.K. Nigam (P.W.6) opined that thepossibility could not be ruled out that the injury suffered byHukam Singh on his neck could have caused his death. He furtheropined the possibility of the said injury having been suffered by

Hukam Singh with `Gandasa' (Exhibit P.1) could not be ruled out.The medical evidence furnished by Dr. R.K. Tandon (P.W.1) andDr. P.K. Nigam (P.W.6), thus, lends complete corroboration to theocular version given by Pala Ram (P.W.3), Hukam Singh (P.W.4).Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that theappellants had caused injuries to Hukam Singh and Jeet Singh. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in thisappeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

January 21, 2010.ak

( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE