IN THE COURT OF SANCHITA SINGH

JUDGMENT:

1.Present accused have been sent by SHO of Police Station to face the trial for the

commission of offences punishable under sections 323,324,325,326,147and 148 read

with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.In brief it is the case of prosecution that on 1.1.2013 at about 5:00 am, the victim

surjit singh was going to fields. When he was in front of the house of rattan Singh, he

was surrounded by Sucha Singh armed with a gandasa, Sukhram Singh armed

withKirpan, Rachpal Singh armed with datar, and Rattan Singh and Gurdeep Singh

armed with a lathieach. Sucha Singh raised a lalkara that enemy Surjit Singh has

arrived. He should be taught a lessonfor filing a civil suit against them. Sukhram

Singh also raised a lalkara that Surjit Singh should bedone to death. On this all the

accused attacked him with their respective weapons. Sucha Singh gave gandasi blow

on his right hand. Sukhram gave kirpan blow on his left leg. Rachpal gave datar blow

on the right arm and right leg. Rattan Singh and Gurdeep Singh gave lathi blows on

the back and the legs. He had raised hue and cry, on hearing which his son

Lakhwinder Singh who was following him at''some distance had reached the spot.
One Virsa Singh whose house is nearby had also arrived at thespot. They both

intervened and saved his life otherwise he would have been done to death. The

accusedwhile leaving the spot held out a threat that he had been saved, buthewill be

done to death on thenext available opportunity.His son took him home and arranged a

tractor-trolly and then brought himto the hospital on 1.1.2013at 9:00am." the doctors

sends a ruqua to the police station.ASI Vkram singh arrives in the hospital and

recorded the statement of Surjit singh.

3.The aforesaid statement of Surjit Singh was sent to the police station, on the basis

of which formalFIR was registered. Vikram Singh, ASI also recorded the statement of

Lakhwinder Singh in the hospital and thereafter he went to the spot, inspected the

same, prepared a rough site plan collectedblood-stained earth, and arranged a

photographer who took photographs of the spot He alsorecorded statement u/s 161

Cr.P.C. of Virsa Singh. The accused were arrested on 02.01.2013 and produced in the

court on 03.01.2013 and police remand was obtained. On 04.01.2013,PW's

Lakhwinder & virsa were joined in investigation when the accused made disclosure

statements and thereafter got recovered the weapons of offence, which were taken

into possession after being duly sealed and sent to the FSL on the same day. After

completion of necessary formalities of investigation, the accused was challaned and

sent to the Court to stand trial for having committed the aforesaid offences.

4.Copy of challan was supplied to the accused free of cost as envisaged under Section

207,of the crpc.

 5. Finding a prima facie case charges were framed u/s 147 &148,326, 325, 324,

323 read with Section 149 l.P.C.

6.list of witnesses and documents proved by prosecution

Serial no NAME DOCUMENTS

PW1 DR. X PW1/A
PW2 DR.Y PW2/A to PW2/D
PW3 Surjit Singh PW3/A
PW4 Lakhwinder Singh PW4/A to PW4/K
PW5 Virsa Singh PW5/A and PW5/b
PW6 Ramphal HC FIR
PW7 Balwinder Singh
PW8 Jagir Singh-photographer
PW9 Vikram Singh Ruqua

The prosecution examined following witnesses:

PW1- had proved the injuries found on the person of Surjit He found injury no. 1 (on

right hand),injury no. 2 (on left leg), injury no.3 (on right arm), injury no.4 (on right

leg) were caused by sharpedged weapon. Remaining injuries no. 5 to 8 were caused

by blunt weapon. Injury no. 1,2 &5 were declared as grievous. In cross-examination

he admitted that possibility of injury no. 1 and 2being caused by fall on a spade

cannot be ruled out and the possibility of injury in 5 &6 being caused

by a friendly hand cannot be ruled out.PW2- had radio logically examined Surjit

Singh and found fracture of the bone at the site of theinjury no. 1,2 & 5.

PW3 & PW4- have supported the prosecution version.PW4 also deposed that on
4/1/13 he was joined in investigation when the accused made disclosure statements

and thereafter got recovered theweapons of offence, which were taken into possession

after being duly sealed.PW5- deposed that on 01.01.2013 at 5:00 AM Surjit Singh

had received injuries at the hands of someunknown persons. He had reached the spot

on hearing hue and cry of Surjit Singh. The accused hadalready fled from the spot.

On the request of public prosecutor this witness was declared hostile.PW6 to

proveFIR/ case property deposited with him/he sent it to FSL

PW7 Constable-sent special report/took parcels to FSLPW8-Photographer

PW9- deposed that on 01.01.2013 a ruqa was received from the hospital at 9:30 AM

and he had

reached the hospital at 10:00 AM and had recorded statement of Surjit Singh on basis

of which FIRwas registered. He had visited the spot carried out investigation. He

proved rough site plan,disclosure statements of accused and recovery memos

regarding weapons of offence.

8.Statement of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating

materialappearing in evidence against them was put to the accused. They denied the

charges and claim tohave been falsely implicated. It was further asserted that on

01.01.2013 at about 5:00 AM RattanSingh was present in his house when Surjit Singh

came there and called out Rattan Singh. WhenRattan Singh came out, he found Surjit

Singh was armed with lathi and he started giving lathi blowsto Rattan Singh. On hue

and cry raised by Rattan Singh, his servants Ram Singh and Sham Singhcame to his

help and caused some injuries to Surjit Singh in self defence. None of the other
accusedhad participated in this occurrence. It was also asserted that accused Gurdeep

Singh was actuallypresent in his office of Municipal Corporation at Bombay on

01.01.2013 and he had not participatedin this occurrence and has been falsely

implicated.

9.The list of defence witnesses and documents proved by them:

Serial no. Name Documents

DW1 Clerk
DW2 Superindent
DW3 Clerk to advocate
DW4 Dr. M

In defence evidence the accused examined DW1 clerk from the office of Municipal

Corporation Bombay, where Gurdeep Singh is employed. He proved copy of

attendance register showing thatGurdeep Singh was present in his office on

01.01.2013 at 9:00 AM. DW2 Superintendent fromMunicipal Corporation Bombay.

He also deposed that the attendance register remains in his custodyand that on

01.01.2013 Gurdeep Singh was present in the office and had met him to discuss about

acivil case pending in the court against Municipal Corporation Bombay.

GurdeepSingh had beendeputed to meet the concerned lawyer of Municipal

Corporation and watch the proceedings in thecourt which were fixed for 01.01.2013.

DW3 is a clerk to advocate Mr. X who represents Municipal Corporation. He deposed

that Gurdeep Singh had come to the chamber of Mr. X at 10:00 AM on 01.01.2013

and had remained present in the court premises on that day. He also produced copy of
thezimine orders dated 01.01.2013 of civil case Mr. Z Vs. Municipal Corporation.

DW4 is doctor M whohad examined Rattan Singh on 02.01.2013. He proved copy of

MLR showing one contusion on the backof Rattan Singh.

10. The learned APP for the state has contended that:

On 01.01.2013 victim surjit singh was going to his fields where he was intercepted

by the accused and accused caused injuries on his person for filing a civil suit against

the accused. PW3 and PW4 have supported the prosecution version. Moreover MLR

on record has been proved by doctor. The investigating agencies have also recovered

all the weapons used in the crime.The learned APP for the state has further contended

that the accused had motive to cause injuries and prosecution has produced sufficient

evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover the plea taken by the

accused of alibi is not proved and hence false. The defence counsel unable to prove

that the accused have not caused injuries to the victim. The learned APP for the state

has pleaded for maximum sentence to accused and heavy fine on them.

11. The defence argued on the following points:

There is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence. Surjit Singh is the

complainant.Lakhwinder Singh is his son. The only independent witness Virsa Singh

did not support prosecution case and was declared hostile.Lakhwinder has not

received any injury and so his presence at spot cannot be accepted.There are various

discrepancies in the statements ofPW3 & PW4. Lakhwinder has given the time of

occurrence as 6:00 AM, while PW3 says it was 5:00 AM. As per PW4 occurrence

lasted for 25-30minutes. As per PW3 it lasted for 4-5 minutes.

Conflict between medical evidence and direct evidence.The alleged occurrence took

place at 5:00 AM when it was totally dark and there was no source oflight and the

accused could not have been identified. No TIP was held by the police.There was a

delay of more than 5 hours in lodging of FIR.The alleged motive has not been

established.The plea of alibi of Gurdeep has been duly established.Injuries on person

of Rattan Singh accused have not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, the

plea of self defence has been duly established by the accused

12. After hearing the counsel of both the parties and going through case file very

carefully there are following points for determination in order to establish guilt of the

accused:

1.Whether prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt ?

In order to establish Point no. 1 following sub points are framed:

(a)whether it is proved that on 01.01.2013 Surjeet singh had suffered the alleged

injuries on his body?

(b) whether accused had caused the aforesaid injuries to Surjeet singh?

2. Whether accused Gurdeep Singh has proved his plea of alibi?

3.Whether the plea of self defence of accused has been proved?

Findings on point no 1(a)

In support of this point for determination the Ld. APP for the State has placed

reliance on the ruqua EX sent by dr. x to the ASI Vikram singh that victim in injured

condition is admitted in the hospital on 01.01.2013 at about .9:00 AM. On the basis

of which ASI visited the hospital and recorded the statement of victim on which FIR
was recorded by the investigaion agencies. The ld APP for the state has also relied

upon the version of PW3 and PW4 who have supported the version of the prosecution

that victim was present on the scene of crime on 01.01.2013 and accused had caused

injuries on his person. The FIR which was registered after the incident fully

corroborates the version of the statements and version of the prosecution. Statements

of the Doctor and the radiologist proves that injured was admitted in the hospital on

01.01.2013 and thereafter they have prepared a MLR of the victim which shows

injuries no 1 to 8 on his person.

INJURY CHART

SERIAL NO INJURIES
Injury no.1 On right hand(sharp edged weapon)
Injury no.2 On left leg(sharp edged weapon)
Injury no.3 On right arm(sharp edged weapon)
Injury no.4 On right leg(sharp edged weapon)
Injury no.5 to 8 Simple injuries

The duration of injuries was found to be within six hours. In cross examination he

denied that injuries no 5 to 8could be self suffered or could be caused by falling on

hard surface. He also denied that the duration of injuries was 12 hours or more than

that. There is no worthwhile cross examination of two doctors who have clearly

proved the injuries on person of the accusedMoreover the statement of PW3 fully

corrobates the medical evidence.further the accused had not rebutted the presence of

the victim on the spot on the day of occurrence infact they have taken plea that they

had caused injuries to the accused in self defence which clearly establishes the

presence of the victim on the scene of crime and presence of injuries on his person.
From the above evidence on record the court comes to the following conclusion that

victim Surjit Singh was present on the scene of crime on 01.01.2013 and he had

suffered injuries on the day of occurrence.

Findings on point 1(b)

In support of this point for determination the Ld. APP for the State has placed

reliance on the statement of victim surjit singh in which he has stated that on

01.01.2013 when he was going to his fields. when he reached near the house of rattan

singh he was surrounded by Sucha Singh armed with a gandasa, Sukhram Singh

armed with Kirpan, Rachpal Singh armed with datar, and Rattan Singh and Gurdeep

Singh armed with a lathi each. Sucha Singh raised a lalkara that enemy Surjit Singh

has arrived. He should be taught a lesson for filing a civil suit against them. Sukhram

Singh also raised a lalkara that Surjit Singh should be done to death. On this all the

accused attacked him with their respective weapons. Sucha Singh gave gandasi blow

on his right hand. Sukhram gave kirpan blow on his left leg. Rachpal gave datar blow

on the right arm and right leg. Rattan Singh and Gurdeep Singh gave lathi blows on

the back and the legs. After the incident the FIR was recorded on the same day and

without any inordinate delay. The alleged occurrence took place at at 5.00 AM. The

injured was shifted to his house and his family members made arrangement of a

private vehicle to carry the injured to hospital. As per statement ofPW4 they arranged

a tractor and a trolley and started from the village at about 7:30 AM and reached

PHC at about 8:00 AM, from where he was referred to the government hospital at
District Headquarter where they reached at about 9:00 AM.There has been no cross-

examination on this aspect The injured

was examined by the doctor and given first aid and ruqa was sent to police stationThe

police arrived at the hospital at 10:00 AM and recorded the statement

of injured which was sent to the police station where FIR was registered at 10:30

This shows that there are no chances of deliberations and alterations in the FIR.The

FIR completely corroborates the version of the prosecution Further the statement of

the PW4 corroborates the version of the victim stating that the aforesaid accused

caused injuries to the victim. However defence counsel had rebutted that PW4 was

not present on the scene of crime. If he could had been there he had suffered injuries

on his person also. There is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence the only

independent witness Virsa Singh PW5 did not support the version of prosecution and

was declared hostile. The counsel also reffered to some discrepancies in the

statements of these witnesses.

The aforesaid arguments of defence have no substance. It is settled law that testimony

of injured witness is generally considered to be very relaible and considered to have

special status in eyes of law.

In the case of Bhajan Singh versus State of Haryana AIR (2011) 7 SCC 421 it was

held as follows :

"The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the
place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and
it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The
testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time
of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a
witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to
spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required
to discredit an injured witness." Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon
unlessthere are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein. (Vide Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.21; Kailas v. State of Maharashtra22;
Durbalv. State of U.P.23 and State of U.P. v. Naresh24.)"

The FIR gives names of all the accused, the weapons carried by them and it also
gives details of the role of each accused. There is no material variance between the
version given in FIR and the one given by PW3.The statement of injured is also
corroborated by the medical evidence discussed above. All the injuries
mentioned by PW2 and given in the FIR were found by the doctor on examination of
Surjit Singh. He has also stated that these injuries could be caused by the weapons
(Ex. PI to P5) recovered from the accused.The factum of recovery of weapons (Ex. PI
to P5) from the accused has also been duly proved by cogent and
reliable evidence. The accused on arrest were interrogated by the 1.0. in presence of
PW4and PW5. The accused made disclosure statements (Ex.PW4/A to PW4/E), on
the basis of which the accused led the police party and got recovered
the aforesaid weapons (Ex. PI to PS) which were taken in possession vide recovery
memos (Ex. PW4/F to PW4/K).The weopons (EX.Pl to P5) were sent to forensic lab
and the report of serologist has been proved as Ex. P6,
which shows that human blood was detected on the sharp edged weapons Ex. Pi to
Ex.P3. No blood was detected on lathies Ex. P4 and PS. The defence has failed to
explain as to how the weapons recovered from their possession just
after three days of the occurrence carried human blood. So this evidence also
corroborates the statement of the injured.It has been argued that statement of PW3
and PW4 suffer from various discrepancies and so cannot be acted
upon. The discrepancies which have been pointed out by the defence are of no
consequence, it has been repeatedly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
discrepancies due to normal errors of observation or normal errors of
memory due to lapse of time are always there, however truthful or honest a witness
may be. Such discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter cannot be the
basis for rejecting or disbelieving the prosecution case. Reference in
this context can be made to Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab (2003)7 SCC 643,

There is some merit in the submission of defence that absence of any injury on person
of Lakhwinder raises a doubt regarding his presence at the time of occurrence. As per
statement of Lakhwinder, he had intervened in this occurrence and had saved his
father from the bonds of the accused. If this is true, then keeping in view the previous
enmity between the parties, it is not possible to visualize as to how accused would
spare the son and he would not suffer even a scratch. So this circumstance does raise
a doubt regarding the presence of Lakhwinder at the time of occurrence. But
this circumstance by itself cannot demolish the prosecution cose. It is a well settled
law that statement of an injured witness if found reliable, by itself, is sufficient to
convict the accused. In the case of Chacko Vs. State of Kerala 2004

it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that conviction con be based even on the statement of a
solitary witness if found to be totally reliable. In present case the statement of injured Surjit Singh,
as discussed earlier Is totally reliable and convincing and hence is sufficient for convicting the
accused.The argument of defence that in absence of independent witness the testimony of PW3
should not be acted upon is absolutely meritless. Reference in this context can also be made to the
case of Aopabhai Vs. State of Gujarat 198S
(Supp.)SCC241.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that, subject to the finding on the point
no. 2 and 3. the prosecution has successfully proved point no. 1.

12. REASONS FOR DETERMINATION .

Point no.l.Whether prosecution has proved its case bevond all reasonable doubts ?
In order to answer this point we may frame two sub points:
Sub point (A): Whether on 1/1/2013 Surjit Singh had suffered the alleged injuries ?
In proof of this sub point prosecution has reffered to testimony of two medical
officers besides
statement of Surjit Singh. Prosecution has examined Dr. X as PW 1 who had carried
out medico legal
examination of Surjit Singh on 01.01.2013 at 9:00AM. He found following injuries
on the person of Surjit
Singh:
Injuries:
1. _
2. _
3.
PW1 proved copy of MLR as PW1/A and the diagram of seat of injuries as PW1/B.
He opined that
injuries no. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp edged weapon while injuries no. 5 to 8 were
caused by blunt edged
weapon. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 5 were found to be grievous. The duration of injuries
was found to be within six
hours. This witness was shown the weapon of offence and he opined that injuries no.
1 and 2 could be
caused by Gandasa (Ex. PI), injury no. 3 by Kirpan (Ex. P2), injury no. 4 by Datar
(Ex. P3). Remaining injuries
could be caused by lathies (Ex. P4 and PS). In cross examination he denied that
injuries no. 5 to 8 could be
self suffered or could be caused by fall on hard surface. He also denied that the
duration of the injuries was
12 hours or more than that.

Dr. Y was examined as PW2. He had radiologically examined Surjit Singh on

2.2.2013 and had found
fracture of the bone at the site of injuries no. 1, 2 and 5.
There is no worthwhile cross examination of the two doctors, who have clearly
proved the
injuries on the person of Surjit Singh. Moreover statement of Surjit Singh as PW3
fully corroborates the
medical evidence. The said evidence is sufficient & trustworthy to establish that
Surjit received aforesaid
injuries on 1/1/2013. It is next to be seen whether Surjit received the said injuries at
hands of accused.