V.K. Bali, J.
1. Lakha Singh and his two sons Kulwinder Singh and Karamjit Singh were tried with their co-accused Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh under sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Sukhwinder Singh. In the resultant trial whereas Karamjit Singh was held guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to further under go R.I. for six months, Lakha Singh and Kulwinder Singh were held guilty with the aid of Section 34 and sentenced and fined in the same manner as Karamjit Singh. Their co-accused Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh were, however, acquitted of the charge framed against them. Against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31-8-1995 passed by Shri G. L. G. Chopra, Sessions Judge, Amritsar, Lakha Singh and his two sons have filed Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995. State of Punjab aggrieved by acquittal of Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 204-DBA of 1996. Ajit Singh complainant father of deceased Sukhwinder Singh has filed Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1995 which has been ordered to be heard with the main case. By this order, we propose to dispose of the two appeals and the revision referred to above.
2. Facts leading to the death of Sukhwinder Singh came to light when Ajit Singh PW-1 father of Sukhwinder Singh made a statement before ASI Milkha Singh PW-5 on 10-11-1994 at 8-15 a.m. As per his version, his son was attacked in front of his house by Lakha Singh and his two sons Kulwinder Singh and Karamajit Singh as also by Balbir Singh and Milkha Singh sons of Sampuran Singh on 9-11-1994 at 9/9-30 p.m. in the area of village Boparai, which is at a distance of five miles from the police station, Patti. A copy of the FIR i.e. Special report reached the Magistrate at Patti on 2-10 p.m. on 10-11-1994. Ajit Singh while unfolding the prosecution version stated that he was resident of village Boparai Model and ex-Sarpanch of the village. He had two children. One of them is son namely Sukhwinder Singh aged 34/35 years and second is a daughter namely Sukhi who is married with Lachhman Singh at village Kalas. Last night on 9-11-1994 at about 9/9-30 p.m. Lakha Singh son of Ajaib Singh armed with Kirpan (sword), Kulwinder Singh son of Lakha Singh armed with knife, Karamjit Singh alias Bhola son of Lakha Singh armed with dang, Milkha Singh son of Sampuran Singh armed with dang, and Balbir Singh son of Sampuran Singh armed with Dang went ahead from the corner of their house while raising noise through the street. The electric bulb was emitting light and he was standing in the corner of his house. In the meantime, his son Sukhwinder Singh was coming back from outside in the street after answering call of nature. When he arrived in the corner of the street, Lakha Singh raised a Lalkara saying catch hold and kill him and teach him a lesson for contesting the Election of Sarpanch against them. On hearing the noise of appellants, Dara Singh son of Banta Singh and Satnam Singh son of Dara Singh, residents of the village also came out in the street. Within their sight, namely, Satnam Singh, Dara Singh and himself, appellant Kulwinder Singh gave knife blow to his son Sukhwinder Singh which hit on his left ear. Thereafter Lakha Singh gave a Kirpan blow to him which hit on the fingers of his right hand as a result of which Sukhwinder Singh fell on the ground. Thereafter, Karamjit Singh alias Bhola, Milkha Singh, Balbir Singh alias Bira gave beating to Sukhwinder Singh with their dangs (Bamboo Sticks) mercilessly while he was lying fallen on the ground and also gave thrust blows on his ribs. When Dara Singh, Satnam and he himself raised alarm Mar Ditta Mar Ditta (Killed, Killed) then the assailants with their respective weapons fled away from the spot. Later on after making proper arrangements for conveyance, Sukhwinder Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Patti in an injured condition for treatment. He succumbed to his injuries. After leaving Dara Singh and Chanan Singh near the dead body, he was going to the police station to lodge the FIR when the ASI met him. He further stated that assailants had committed the murder of his son with a common intention. The cause of grudge was that he had contested the election of Sarpanch against Lakha Singh this time.
3. The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995 and their co-accused Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh examined Dr. Kashmir Singh Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Patti as PW. 4. He stated that on 10-11-1994 he received police papers at 11-30 a.m. and conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sukhwinder Singh. He found the following injuries on his dead body :-
'1. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 5 cm on right little finger, palmer aspect middle part. Wound is muscle deep. Clotted blood present.
2. An incised wound 2 cm x 5 cm on the body of right ring finger palmer aspect. Wound was muscle deep. Clotted blood present.
3. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 5 cm on right hand middle finger palm aspect. Wound was muscle deep. Wounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were corresponding with each other.
4. An incised wound 2.5 cm x. 75 cm, on left ear middle part, pinna was cut. Clotted blood present.
5. A defused swelling in an area of 3 cm x 2 cm on the top of scalp. On dissection, sub cutaneous haemorrhage present. No fracture of skull. On further dissection, there was sub dural haemorrhage present in upper and posterior part of both cerebral hemisphere. Colour of the blood of sub dural haemotoma was red.
6. A reddish contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on right side of chest, 3 cm below the nipple on the anterior aspect.
7. A reddish contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on left side of chest, anterior aspect lower part.
4. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to intra cranial haemorrhage. Injury No. 5 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injuries Nos. 1 and 4 were caused by sharp-edged weapon whereas other were caused with blunt weapon. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within 12 hours and between death and post-mortem about six hours. PW-1 Ajit Singh father of the deceased and first informant deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by him. The other two eye-witnesses PW Dara Singh and PW Satnam Singh fully supported the version of PW-1 Ajit Singh. Milkha Singh ASI PW-5 detailed the steps that he had taken while investigating the case.
5. In his statement made under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants besides denying the incriminating material put to them denied the occurrence and their presence at the spot and further stated that they were involved falsely in the case on account of political rivalry. They however, led no evidence in defence.
6. We have heard Mr. H. S. Mattewal the learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995 as also Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who defends the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995 and assails the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 204-DBA of 1996 whereby Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh were acquitted, as also Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate who appears for Mr. M. L. Merchea, Advocate for the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1995 and with their assistance examined carefully the records of the case.
7. Mr. Mattewal in support of Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995 contends that not only that there is delay in lodging the FIR, there is also delay in sending the Special Report of occurrence to the Magistrate concerned leading to an irresistible conclusion that Ajit Singh father of the deceased had sufficient time to deliberate to coin the story and ascribe role to all the accused and inasmuch as there is absolutely no explanation in lodging the report at belated stage, the whole prosecution story deserves to be rejected. It may be recalled at this stage that whereas the occurrence had taken place on 9-11-1994 at 9/9-30 p.m. the FIR came to be lodged next morning i.e. 10-11-1994 at 8-15 a.m. and the police station, Patti is stated to be at a distance of five miles from the place of occurrence. So far as Special Report is concerned, the same reached the concerned Magistrate at 2-10 p.m. on 10-11-1994. With a view to elaborate that Ajit Singh or his companions who might have taken injured to the hospital had no story at that stage, it is stated that in Ex. DD which is a bed head ticket, they stated that they would narrate the incident after the arrival of their relations. Reference at this stage may be made to Ex. DD which is a bed head ticket of Sukhwinder Singh. On reverse of the first page there are names of Dara Singh and Sarwan Singh and under their thumb impressions it has been mentioned that they have been told about serious condition of their patient. As by now the patient should be treated. On arrival of the relations in the morning they will tell about Parcha (Lodging of report). Based upon this bed head ticket Mr. Mattewal contends that nothing was known as to how Sukhwinder Singh had been hurt and for that precise reason nothing was informed at Civil Hospital and so much so that it was mentioned by Dara Singh and Sarwan Singh that they were to think of lodging the report in the morning of arrival of relations. Time was taken to deliberate over the issue and after due consultations, a story was coined and for that reason the FIR came to be lodged at 8-15 in the morning of 10-11-1994. Even the FIR which purports to have been lodged at 8-15 a.m. must, in fact, had been recorded still later inasmuch as the Special Report reached the Magistrate concerned at 2-10 p.m. on the same day further contends the learned counsel.
8. We have given our anxious thoughts to the contention raised by Mr. Mattewal but in the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the arguments cannot be stretched beyond addition of accused. If there was a deliberation, the same could be at best to involve Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh who are either not at all related to Lakha Singh and his two sons and if at all then being fourth degree collateral had nothing in common with Lakha Singh appellant and his two sons. Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh being not related to Lakha Singh and his two sons and there being, in fact, only three injuries two by sharp-edged weapon and other by blunt weapon, Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh have already been given the benefit of doubt and as such acquitted. Ajit Singh and other two eye-witnesses are natural witnesses living in the same house. The time of the occurrence is when all of them are likely to be at the house. Sukhwinder Singh was taken to the hospital by none other than his own father and those who had seen the occurrence. There was no question whatsoever for Ajit Singh and other two eye-witnesses to have involved the appellants and let go the real culprits. There could be no occasion for them to have involved innocent persons only because of an election dispute and let go scot free the real assailants. Their anxiety to involve as many persons as possible as accused cannot be ruled out and that was precisely done by them in naming Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh. The delay in the FIR or for that matter the special report reaching the Magistrate cannot go beyond entertaining doubt in involvement of Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh in the crime. The injuries sustained by Sukhwinder Singh also suggest that the assailants were three. The first three injuries have been caused by a single blow of Kirpan, as is also the opinion of the doctor who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sukhwinder Singh. The fourth injury an incised wound 2.5 cm x. 75 cm on left ear middle part, pinna was cut. This injury has a different dimension than injuries 1 to 3 and could well be caused by knife as is the prosecution version. Injury No. 5 is a result of blunt weapon. Injuries 6 and 7 are only contusions. As per the version of the doctor, injury Hno. 5 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and as mentioned above the aforesaid injury is only one which has been caused by a blunt weapon. Karamjit Singh as per the prosecution version was armed with a dang and his co-accused Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh were also similarly armed. If only one injury with blunt weapon has been found on the dead body of Sukhwinder Singh, obviously, the two others, namely, Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh had not caused any injury to him. There could not be any dispute with regard to participation of Karamjit Singh who was armed with lathi as he along with others had a common motive. Whereas Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh are concerned, they are not related to Lakha Singh and his two sons. They are also not residing in close vicinity where Sukhwinder Singh was injured and one of these two has defect in leg and as per observations of the learned Sessions Judge cannot walk without the assistance of a stick. These alone, thus, could be given the benefit of doubt. But for this blemish, i.e. endeavour on the part of the prosecution to involve Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh, we do not find any infirmity in the prosecution version. The father of the deceased and other two eye-witnesses have given absolutely consistent version of the incident leading to the death of Sukhwinder Singh. The contention of the learned counsel with regard to delay in FIR has thus, to be accepted but only to the extent that a doubt arises in participation of Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh.
9. Mr. Mattewal then contends that the conduct of the eye-witnesses who are none other than the father and uncles of the deceased is absolutely unnatural. If son of Ajit Singh PW-1 and nephew of the witnesses was belaboured in front of their house, there was no reason that the father and the uncles would not have intervened and endeavoured to save Sukhwinder Singh contends the learned counsel for the appellants. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel as it is the positive case of the prosecution that the accused were armed whereas Ajit Singh and other witnesses were empty handed. As per the version of the prosecution, the whole incident had taken 1/2 minutes and before an attempt could be made by Ajit Singh and others to arm themselves or to even otherwise rescue Sukhwinder Singh the accused had fled away from the scene of occurrence. The reaction of different persons differ. It is not unknown that sometimes even a stranger takes risk of his life to save some one being belaboured in his presence whereas sometimes close relations give precedence to self preservation.
10. It is then contended by Mr. Mattewal that there was no motive with the appellants to cause death of Sukhwinder Singh inasmuch as the appellant Lakha Singh had been elected as. Sarpanch and if there was some grouse, the same could be with the complainant party to have lost election. Once again we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. It could not he disputed that Ajit Singh had contested election against Lakha Singh and even though lost had filed election petition which was dismissed. He had filed an appeal which was fixed before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, for 10-11-1994 and it is a day prior thereto that the occurrence had taken place.
11. The last contention of Mr. Mattewal is that the prosecution has changed the place of occurrence inasmuch no blood was found or lifted from the alleged place of occurrence. We find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel as well. It has been the consistent case of the witnesses that no blood had fallen on the spot. That apart, occurrence was of 9/9-30 p.m. whereas the police had gone to the spot the next day at about 11-00 a.m. The place where the occurrence had taken place is a thoroughfare and it is possible that even if some blood had fallen, the same may not be available as number of person must have passed by the said thoroughfare.
12. No other contention has been raised on behalf of the appellants.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit, in Criminal Appeal No. 484-DB of 1995 and dismiss the same. We also find no merit in Criminal appeal No. 204-DBA of 1996 filed by State or Punjab and Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1995 filed by complainant Ajit Singh. The State Appeal and the Revision are also dismissed. We confirm the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar against appellants Lakha Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Karmajit Singh and order of acquittal against Milkha Singh and Balbir Singh.
14. Appeal dismissed.