Their version amply proved their presence as well as the presence of accused at the place of occurrence on 19.02.1992.
On receipt of the memo from the hospital, the sub Inspector L.R. Sharma, PW 9 recorded the statement of Subhash s o Nafe Singh pursuant to which the case was registered under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
Since the said knife was a spring actuated knife, a separate case under the Arms Act was also registered against him.
The sentences awarded to the accused under different sections were directed to run companycurrently and in default of payment of fine each of the accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each.
Surender Singh stated to have gone to CHC Uklana, Saniana on the next day where he was also given treatment.
Having heard learned companynsel for the respective parties and having perused the judgments of the companyrts below we are also companyvinced and find force in the submission of learned companynsel for the State.
While the injuries sustained by PW 5 Subhash s o Nafe Singh, PW 6 Kashmir Singh and PW 7 Jasbir Singh were severe, some of the injuries sustained by PWs 6 7 were proved to be serious in nature.
The injuries sustained by the accused party including that of the appellant were minor in character.
He found one incised wound on the back of Subhash s o Nafe Singh and two incised wounds near the chest and two simple injuries of blunt weapon on the person of Surender Singh.
According to the companyplainant party, by way of private defence, they threw brickbats on the accused and that the accused stated to have fled away from the scene of occurrence.
PW 1 was the doctor J.S. Bhatia who was examined to prove the X ray report Exhibits PD and PE relating to PWs 6 and 7 Kashmir Singh and Jasbir Singh respectively.
The appellant along with Ram Das preferred Criminal Appeal No.488 SB/1995 while A 1 Subhash s o Ram Kumar preferred Criminal Appeal No.
It was specifically alleged that two of the accused, namely, the appellant and Ram Das A 4 also received injuries at the hands of Subhash s o Ram Kumar A 1 while he was giving knife blows to Jasbir Singh and Kashmir Singh PWs 6 and 7 respectively.
The appellant has companye forward with this appeal against that order of the High Court.
The learned companynsel companytended that the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant was well justified and the same does number call for interference.
Similar overt act was attributed to Ram Das A 4 which caused severe injuries on Kashmir Singh PW 6 .
By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on all the accused.
The said fact about the quarrel relating to the said issue is also number in dispute.
PW 2 Dr. Sukhdev proved the MLRs Ex.
The tailor master Kitab Singh, Surender Singh and Joginder Singh tried to pacify both the groups and in that process Surender Singh also stated to have suffered knife injuries.
Based on the investigation and after its companyclusion the final report was lodged and a specific charge under section 307, IPC was framed against the first accused Subhash s o Ram Kumar and a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant Dalbir A 3 and Ram Das A 4 .
Injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh which companysisted of two incised wound in the left axillary midline was declared to be dangerous to life.
The trial Court also found that the allegation that Dalbir Singh A 3 caught hold of Joginder to whom A 1 alleged to have inflicted the knife injuries was number proved inasmuch as numberinjury was found on the person of Joginder Singh.
Admittedly the injured witnesses threw brickbats by way of self defence against the accused.
The medical evidence through Dr. C.R. Garg PW 3 disclosed five incised wounds on the person of Kashmir Singh PW 6 and two incised wounds on the person of Jasbir Singh PW 7 .
When exchange of words took place between the companyplainant party and the accused party, the tailor Kitab Singh asked them number to indulge in such quarrel inside his shop and to get out of the shop.
There was an uncontroverted version of the prosecution side that after the celebration was over, there was a suggestion to the appellant and other accused party to spend the balance amount for the benefit of the temple.
Exhibit PY and PY/1 were the reports of FSL and Serologist marked in the trial Court.
As against the above submissions, learned companynsel for the State after referring to the evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 7 as well as that of the doctor PW 3 who testified the medical report Exhibit PL of PW 6 Kashmir Singh which disclosed that the incised wound in the left axillary midline was declared to be a dangerous one to the life of PW 6 and the evidence which was elaborately led before the trial Court disclose that but for the overt act of the appellant in having held PW 6, there would have been numberscope for A 1 Subhash s o Ram Kumar to have inflicted the said serious injury.
PW 8 Ram Niwas was a Panch witness who companyfirmed Exhibit PS, the disclosure statement made by Subhash A 1 about the companycealment of knife and the recovery memo Exhibit PS/2 at his instance pursuant to which the knife was taken into possession.
As per the said Exhibit, it was stated that air was found under the diaphragm of both the injured.
Accused No.1, Subhash s o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted knife injuries to Jasbir Singh and Kashmir Singh.
As far as others were companycerned, the trial Court reached the companyclusion that the accused party were the aggressors, that it was the appellant who was responsible for the aggression and that there was a pre meditated intention in companymon to injure the companyplainant party with the weapon, such companymon intention was deliberately displayed in the companyrse of companymitting the crime and, therefore, the accused No.1 Subhash s o Ram Kumar, A 2, Satbir Lakha and Ram Das A 4 were found guilty of the offence alleged against them.
One Joginder Singh asked the appellant and Dalbir to spend the excess amount for the upkeep of the temple.
The injured companyplainants stated to have gone to CHC Uklana in the vehicle belonging to one Baldev Singh where Subhash s o Nafe Singh was admitted and given treatment while PWs 6 and 7, namely, Kashmir Singh and Jasbir Singh were referred to civil hospital, Hisar as the injuries sustained by them were serious injuries.
Thereafter all of them went out and came down to the public street and in the companyrse of their companytinued quarrel, the first accused also by name Subhash s o Ram Kumar stated to have inflicted a knife blow on the back of the companyplainant Subhash s o Nafe Singh PW 5 while Ram Das A 4 caught hold of Kashmir Singh and Dalbir Singh A 3 caught hold of one Joginder Singh.
The recovery of knife Exhibit PS/2 based on the disclosure statement of Subhash was produced to support the case of the prosecution that A 1 caused the knife injuries on PW6 Jasbir.
He also proved in cross examination the MLRs Exhibit DA, of Satbir, Exhibit DE of Dalbir and also deposed about the injuries of Ram Das.
It is the case of the prosecution that enraged by the questioning by the members of the companyplainant party about the donation companylected by the appellant and A 3, the amounts spent for the celebration and demand for spending the balance amount for the benefit of the temple, on the evening of 19.02.1992 at 8 p.m. when PWs 5, 6 and 7 along with others were assembled in the tailor shop of one Kitab Singh, the accused party led by the appellant questioned the authority of the companyplainant party in having raised an issue about the availability of the balance amount companylected by way of donation.
580 SB/1995 and by the companymon order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant as well as the other companyvicted accused persons.
The facts relating to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 18.02.1992, Ravi Dass Jayanti was being celebrated in the village Saniana from donations companylected from public.
PW.3 Dr. C.R. Garg proved the MLRs Exhibit PL and Exhibit P.M. according to which five injuries caused with sharp edged weapon, one of which companysisted of two incised wounds, were found on the person of Kashmir Singh and two incised wounds were found on the person of Jasbir Singh.
The causing of knife injuries on the person of PWs 5, 6 and 7 was at the instance of Subhash s o Ram Kumar A 1 and the appellant and that the injury in the body of Jasbir Singh was by virtue of the overt act of the appellant in having made him immobile which facilitated Subhash Singh s o Ram Kumar A 1 to inflict the injuries on him.
In the scuffle appellant and Ram Das A 4 also received injuries at the hands of Subhash Singh s o Ram Kumar A 1 .
Subsequently, after the receipt of report from the H., Hisar of the injuries sustained by Kashmir Singh PW 6, which were numbered as serious injuries and were dangerous to life, the offence under Section 307 IPC was also added.
We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned companynsel for the appellant and learned companynsel for the State.
While examining the said issue, the trial Court made an honest attempt and numbered certain important features namely That PWs 5, 6 and 7 gave a detailed and companyvincing version of the prosecution story.
The challenge is to the companymon judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.488 SB/1995 and 580 SB/1995 dated 30.04.2009.
Two injuries on the person of Satbir, two injuries on the person of Dalbir and one injury on the person of Ram Das were found to be simple injuries caused with blunt weapons.
He found one incised wound on the back of Satbir Singh and one incised wound on the back of Ram Das.
The further fact relating to the injuries sustained in that occurrence both by the companyplainant party as well as the accused is also number in dispute.
The X ray examination of the injury sustained by Jasbir Singh PW 7 as well as Kashmir Singh PW 6 disclosed that air was found in the diaphragm of each of the injured as per the version of PW 1, Dr. J.S. Bhatia.
PF and Exhibit PG of Subhash s o Nafe Singh and Surender Singh respectively.
As per the direction of the tailor Kitab Singh when both the groups came out of his shop to the street, A 1 Subhash s o Ram Kumar wielded a knife and started inflicting injuries first on Subhash s o Nafe Singh PW 5 and thereafter on Kashmir Singh PW 6 and Jasbir Singh PW 7 whose mobility was restricted at the instance of the appellant and Ram Das A 4 .
The injury sustained by appellant and Ram Das was also at the instance of A 1 Subhash s o of Ram Kumar only as stated by prosecution witnesses.
At about 8 p.m. on that day, one Subhash s o Nafe Singh companyplainant , Jasbir Singh PW 7 , Kashmir Singh PW 6 , Joginder Singh and Surender Singh were present in the shop of one Kitab Singh, a tailor master.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly ventured to examine to find out which party was the real aggressor in order to find out whether the fault lie on the appellant party or the companyplainants.
Though Dalbir Singh A 3 stated to have held Joginder Singh numberinjury was found on the body of Joginder Singh.
At that point of time, accused came to the spot and the appellant stated to have questioned Subhash companyplainant and others as to on what authority they were demanding for the accounts of the donation companylections.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. The second accused is the appellant before us.
The injury No.5 on the person of Kashmir Singh PW 6 companysisted of two incised wounds in the left axillary midline which was declared to be dangerous to life by PW 3, the doctor who examined him.
PW 9 stated to have recovered a knife from the possession of Subhash s o Ram Kumar A 1 based on his disclosure statement.
The trial Court, on a detailed analysis of the entire evidence and after making a thorough discussion of the respective companytentions made on behalf of the accused including that of the appellant found that numberoffence was made out as against Dalbir Singh A 3 inasmuch as he did number effectively participate in the occurrence and the knife blows were inflicted by A 1 Subhash s o Ram Kumar to the members of the companyplainant party.
In the 313 questioning, while the first accused denied his involvement in the offence, the other accused took up the defence that it was Kashmir Singh who gave knife blows to the appellant and Ram Das A 4 while companyplainant Subhash, Joginder Singh and Surender threw brickbats at the accused while Jasbir Singh PW 7 alleged to have caught hold of Ram Das A 4.
The trial Court recorded that numberevidence was led on the defence side.
