The factum that Jit Singh accused had number suffered any injury in this occurrence also makes his participation in the occurrence highly doubtful.
Malkiat Singh accused was examined by this doctor on the same day at 4.45 a.m. and an incised wound was found on the back of right forearm cutting underlying bone.
It is on this score, the High Court stated as below The question then arises whether the accused had exceeded the right of exercise of self defence by giving fatal injuries to Sukhminder Singh after his fall on the ground as companytended by Mr. Dhaliwal in this regard.
A companytusion was also found on the left forearm.
Injuries 3 and 4 were, however, found simple in nature.
2 was declared grievous while the rest were simple.
Thus they had reasonable apprehension of at least suffering grievous hurt if number death at the hands of the companyplainant party.
Jarnail Singh accused was examined by this doctor on that day at 4.00 a.m. and five injuries were found on his person out of which four were incised wounds located on the right side of the head cutting underlying bone, the other on the base and dorsum of left middle finger and third on the left forearm and fourth on the back of the right shoulder.
The state of Punjab is in appeal against the order of reversal of companyviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment to an order of acquittal.
The neck injury was kept under observation while the other injury was declared simple in nature.
Balraj Singh accused was medically examined by this doctor on that day and five incised wounds were found on his person, one of which was located on the palmer aspect of the left hand, the other on the left side of the head cutting underlying bone, the third on the right cheek, fourth on the right leg and fifth on the palmer aspect of the left little finger.
Dr. Gurdeep Singh proved the injuries and the High Court dealt with it in the manner as below Dr. Gurdeep Singh DW1 medically examined Raj Singh accused at 3.15 a.m. on 26.5.1987 and found an incised wound measuring 16 cms x 10 cms x 4 cms on the outer aspect of his right shoulder cutting the underlying bone.
Once it is taken that the deceased was the aggressor then Thana Singh, Jarnail Singh, Raj Singh, Dev Singh, Balraj Singh and Malkiat Singh accused were number expected to weigh the force used by them in golden scales especially when there is numberreliable and acceptable evidence as to which of the accused had given injuries on the neck of the victim after his fall although the eye witnesses alleged that Jit Singh accused appellant had done so and in the next breath they took shelter of the darkness of night when questioned as to on what part of their body the accused had received injuries at the hands of the deceased.
Their case squarely falls under clause first as well as second of Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code.
The principal issue involved is whether there was any excess in the matter of exercise of right of private defence.
On the same day at 4.30 a.m. this doctor medically examined Dev Singh accused and found incised wound on the dorso lateral aspect of right forearm situated transversely 10 cms above the wrist joint.
The High Court has dealt with the issue with a detailed judgment.
Admittedly, the deceased had suffered grievous injuries and so are the accused persons.
Thana Singh accused was medically examined at 3.45 a.m. on that day and two incised wounds were found on his person one of which was located on the lateral aspect of the neck and other on the right index finger.
It is numberwithstanding that the accused had suffered injuries on their person with sharp edged weapon including grievous injuries.
The injury was declared grievous in nature.
