Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT SINGH, J.
Pritam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurmit Singh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2317 of 1984
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.N. Srivastava, Santosh Singh.
For the Respondents: Awadh Sharma, J.N. Chaturvedi.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 200 – Penal Code – Sections 323, 324, 34 – Irrigation Dispute over land –
Facts of the case: Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. by which the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted under sections 323/324 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. –
Finding of the court: Trial Court found the plea raised by the prosecution to be baseless and unfounded and on the other hand the plea raised by the respondents/ ccused was found to be just and proper by saying that after the Mendh was broken, the water was diverted to the plots of complainant and his accomplices. – Court further opined that they were the beneficiaries inasmuch as the water meant for the field of accused persons was also coming to their fields – Trial Court after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Gurmeet Singh, Santokh Singh, Chanan Singh and Triloki Singh acquitted them from the charges leveled against them. – Trial Court further held that the complainant and his three accomplices were the aggressor. – Accused Gurmeet Singh and Chanan Singh suffered grievous injuries. – It has been further held that the injuries suffered by the complainant side received by them when they were stopped by the respondents/accused and in their self defence all the injuries suffered by the appellants/complainant and his side, which were very well explained. – Trial Court has also opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant side are quite insufficient and those can be self inflicted and the injuries sustained by the respondents/ accused were serious in nature. – Learned Trial Court has also opined that the prosecution has made improvement in their case. –
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
AJIT SINGH, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.7.1984 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 223 of 1983 (State vs. Gurmit Singh and Others) by which the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have been acquitted under sections 323/324 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of this case are that PW-1 Pritam Singh and the other co-accused persons reside in village-Paharpur. The land of the accused persons is situated in the northern side of the land of PW-1 Pritam Singh and there is a Mendh between the field of the complainant and the accused persons. They irrigate their field by lifting water from the river which flows in the west. On 18.7.1982 at about 4:00 p.m. when Pritam and his father Tara Singh were irrigating their field, accused Gurmit Singh armed with ‘Banka’ Chanan Singh, Santokh Singh and Triloki Singh armed with lathi came there and asked them as to why they have stopped water to their field, they told that they have not-demolished drain and it might have broken down itself due to heavy pressure of water. Accused Chanan Singh asked his son to teach them a lesson. After hurling abuses, the accused persons started assaulting Pritam Singh and his father with ‘Bhala’ and ‘Lathi’ with the intention to kill them. They also used lathi-danda in their self defence. After hearing the alarm raised by the victim, Prem Singh, Dharo, Jogdendra Singh and Santosh Singh reached at the spot and rescued them. Pritam Singh along with his father went to the police station, but the accused persons were already present there. He lodged the first information report at police station. Not satisfied with the conduct of police, they lodged a complaint against the accused persons. After recording the statements of opposite party under section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons for facing trial under sections 323 and 324 I.P.C.
3. Accused Chanan Singh and Triloki Singh have pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. Accused Gurmit Singh and Santokh Singh have also pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. Accused Gurmit Singh has stated that Pritam Singh, Tara Singh, Ajit Singh and Jaspal Singh demolished his Mendh, as a result of which flow of water to his field had stopped. Pritam Singh was armed with ‘Gadasa’ and rest of the three accused persons were armed with lathi started assaulting him, his father and brothers. Triloki Singh used danda in self defence. Other three accused persons have reiterated the same facts in their statements.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses. Pritam Singh (PW-1) is the injured witness/complainant, Prem Shankar (PW-2), Jogendra Singh (PW-3) were the eye witnesses of the occurrence and Dr. R.S. Gangwar (PW-4) who examined the injured Tara Singh.
5. Pritam Singh (PW-1) injured has fully supported the prosecution case.
So far as PW-2 Prem Shankar and PW-3 Jogendra Singh are concerned, they deposed that the accused persons were assaulting Pritam Singh, his father Tara Singh with ‘Ballam’ and lathi. Pritam Singh used a lathi fixed with a ‘Boori’ (a sharp piece of iron) in his defence.
PW-4 R.S. Gangwar, the Medical Officer has deposed that he examined Tara Singh. He found following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 0.5 cm. x scalp deep right side head 8 cm. above right ear.
(2) Complain of pain in back of neck.
6. The Doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by some blunt object and were simple in nature.
7. He also examined Pritam Singh and found following injuries on his person:
(1) Incised wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep on left little finger. Placed obliquely.
(2) Contusion 11 cm. x 1.05 cm. on back of right side chest 11 cm. below scapula.
8. According to Doctor Injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp edge weapon a
