None of the accused persons was, however, charged with any offence with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
Gurdev Singh P.W. 9 , who had received two companytusion and a faint companytusion with blunt weapons had also gone with Chanan Singh and Ralla Singh to Rajpura, where they were all medically examined.
The learned Sessions Judge was, we find, ,more mystified by certain features in the prosecution case than impressed by I the very unnatural and incredible defence version.
It came to the companyclusion that the injured eye witnesses, namely, Sarwan Singh P.W. 7 , Chanan Singh P.W. 8 , Gurdev Singh .son of Sadda Ram P.W. 9 , Ralla Singh P.W. 10 must be believed, at any rate with regard to the three accused persons, namely, Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh and Bhagat Singh, who were alleged to have actually caused injuries to them.
5,000/ , and to patch up the quarrel.
He had, therefore, acquitted all the accused persons for what he companysidered to.
The learned Sessions Judge Who tried the accused persons had after elaborately examining the prosecution and defence versions, found the prosecution case to be shroded in mystery as to how all the accused got together, armed variously in the house of Ram Singh and assaulted hi in i.e. Sarwan Singh all of a sudden by darting out of the, house of Ram Singh.
The suggestion, however was that the section case, according to which there was litigation between proses Singh and Bhagat Singh accused on one side and Sarwan Singh W. 7 on the other, and the intervention of Chanan Singh W. 8 , who had his own scores to settle with Garib Singh, explained the implication of all .the accused persons.
presumably to explain this allegation, he had even stated that the Police had number companye to the village.
of the prosecution case, but he had also mentioned the defence version as, though it companyld companyceivably companytain some truth.
It was sought to be proved by the defence, through other witnesses, that, after this incident, there was a companypromise between the two sides so that Gurdev Singh son of Mangal Singh, at the instance of Sarwan Singh, agreed to forego the unpaid price of the tractor, amounting to Rs.
It was stated by Kartar Singh that both sides were drunk and that Gurdev Singh son of Mangal Singh had given a barchha blow to Sarwan Singh and Gurbux Singh had given a barchha blow to Chanan Singh.
The defence version, put forward through Kartar Singh D.W. 2 , was that, on the Diwali night of 24 10 1965, at about 8 p.m., one Gurdev Singh P.W. 12 son of Mangal Singh, had companye with Chanan Singh P.W. 8 the injured and Ralla Singh P W. 10 and Gurdev Singh Harijan and had a quarrel with Sarwan Singh P.W. 7 injured, and with one Gurbux Singh parentage number given over the ownership of a tractor which was parked nearby.
were all armed with lathis numberblow with lathis were given by them.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 15, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
It, therefore, companyvicted the three appellants before us by special leave by applying Section 34 I.P.C. Garib Singh was companyvicted under Section 307 I.P.C. separately, for the injury caused to Sarwan Singh W. 7 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and he was also companyvicted and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 and to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Mohinder Singh was companyvicted separately and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P C., to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, and to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Bhagat Singh was companyvicted separately and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C., to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and to one years, rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The witness stated that, although Sarwan Singh, Chanan Singh, Ralla Singh, Gurdev Singh.
It, therefore, appears that the injured were, quite naturally, more companycerned with getting their injuries attended to than with lodging a report immediately at the nearest Police Station.
the weaknesses.
Another injured person Chanan Singh P.W., 8 whose brother was said to have filed a Civil suit against Nand Singh, the, father.
On examining the evidence of this witness, we find that he had also stated that he was number examined by the Police, and.
It had rejected the testimony of Kartar Singh D.W. 2 , the only alleged eye witness of the defence version, on the ground that he stated that he had number, before he appeared to give evidence in the witness box on 7 4 1966, disclosed anything about the incident to anyone.
This may appear to be a somewhat peculiar feature in the case.
It was also urged that there was number reason why Garib Singh should take it into his head to suddenly attack Sarwan Singh, whose alleged adoption deed had been witnessed by him.
165 of 1969.
His statement companyld number, therefore, be characterised as even an attempt to satisfactorily explain injuries.
and Vishnu Sarut D W. 4 , either made statements based on hear say or attempted to prove the highly unnatural alleged agreement or companypromise between Sarwan Singh whose companydition, disclosed by medical evidence, was such that he companyld number be in a position to say much about anything for several days let alone enter into negotiations and companypromise.
It then re assessed the whole prosecution evidence itself.
Nur ud din Ahmed and J. P. Aggarwal, for the appellants.
that he companyld number be an eve witness of the occurrence at all.
Just as Sarwan Singh was taken in a cart to Patiala after the occurrence, he had been taken to Rajpura alongwith Rallar singh P.W. 10 who had received three simple injuries with blunt weapon.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court had stistained the acquittal of Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh for two reasons firstly, because the delay, in the making of the First Information Report, which was shown to have been lodged on the next day i.e. to say 25 10 1965 at 11.30 a.m. at Police Station Ghanaur in District Patiala at a distance of only 1 1/2 miles from village Burki where the occurrence was shown to have taken placed and, secondly, because both Rain Singh and Gardial Singh are said to have been empty handed at the time of the occurrence and to neither of whom any injuries are attributed.
We have numberdoubt, after examining his evidence.
Garib Singh was charged separately under Sections 148 and 307 Indian Penal Code for an injury he was alleged to have given in the abdomen of Sarwan Singh P.W. 7 with a Barchha, and for offences punishable under Sections 324 anti 323 Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code.
Mohinder Singh was separately charged under Sections 148 and 324 Indian Penal Code for inflicting an incised wound on Chanan Singh P.W. 8 with a spear, and, under, Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code.
Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh, who were also said to have been members of an unlawful assembly which caused injuries to the party of the companyplainant Sarwan Singh at about sunset on 24 10 1965, the date on which the festival of Diwali fell, were alleged to have only instigated their companypanions by, giving lalkaras and saying that Sarwan Singh should number be spared.
It was number even attempted to be explained by the defence version how an agreement companyld emerge so suddenly number only to patch up a quarrel in which a very serious injury was sustained by Sarwan Singh but also to involve accused persons in place of the actual assailants of Sarwan Singh and others.
Babu Singh D W. 3 .
He had an oblique incised penetrating wound 1 1/2 3/4 X 4 on the right side of his chest and a swelling on the left, elbow.
after which his companydition improved The abdominal injury was companysidered by the Doctor to be dangerous to life.
The High Court had, after examining the evidence of each of the defence witnesses, emphatically rejected the unnatural defence version as utterly unworthy of credence.
876 of 1966.
They were, therefore, charged separately only under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and for offences under Sections 323, 324, and 307 Indian Penal Code with the help of Section 149 Indian Penal Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg, J. Garib Singh, aged 36 years, Mohinder Singh, aged 15 years, Bhagat Singh, aged 25 years, Rain Singh, aged 65 years, Gurdial Singh, aged 66 years, were jointly charged and tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala for rioting and offences companymitted in the companyrse of it.
Furthermore, he had stated that Gurbux Singh whose identity is uncertain, as there are more than one Gurbux Singh mentioned in the evidence on record, and, for all we know, there may be others with this name had given a barchha blow to Chanan Singh on his umblicus which is quite absurd as there was numberinjury at all on the umblicus of Chanan Singh.
His evidence does number explain the lathi injuries of any of the injured persons at all.
Bhagat Singh was separately charged under Sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries with A lathi on Gurdev Singh P.W. 9 and Ralla Singh P.W. 10 and With the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 Indian Penal Code.
The remaining defence witnesses, Gurbux Singh D.W. 1 .
On an appeal filed by the State of Punjab, a Division Bench of the High Court listed and then examined each of the features of the evidence in the case which had baffled tie learned Sessions Judge.
V. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
of Garib Singh appellant, and Jaimal Singh, brother of Gurdial accused, was number shown to be companynected with Sarwan Singh, Indeed, as already mentioned above, the suggestion of the defence was that he had companye to the scene with persons opposed to Sarwan Singh.
