Baljit Singh Alias Gogi vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 1760 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                           AT CHANDIGARH
                                          ***
320                              CRA-S-3300-SB-2012 (O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: 27.01.2023

BALJIT SINGH @ GOGI                                        -Appellant

                                     Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB                                            -Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Argued by: Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
           for the appellant.

            Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

                                          ***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the verdict of

conviction, and, order of sentence dated 17.08.2012 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in case FIR No.166 of 12.09.2007,

registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

as 'IPC'), at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur, whereby the appellant

has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC,

and, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

seven years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in default of payment of

fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

months.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The prosecution agency was set in motion upon receipt of a

ruqa/information (Ex.PE), on 12.09.2007, from Primary Health Centre,

1 of 15

Kohrian, by A.S.I., Nirmal Singh (PW-7), regarding admission of Preet

Singh (complainant), Gupreet Singh and Satnam Singh. Thereupon, he

along with other police officials reached Primary Health Centre, Kohrian,

and, sought opinion regarding condition of the injured persons. The

doctor vide endorsements, Ex.PG & Ex.PH respectively, declared injured

Preet Singh and Gurpreet Singh fit to make statement, and, also informed

that injured Satnam Singh was referred to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, on

account of his condition being critical. Thereupon, the Investigation

Officer recorded the statement of Preet Singh (complainant), Ex.PW1/A,

which reads as under:-

"I am a painter by profession. Today, at about 08.15 AM, I and Satnam Singh son of Joga Singh, Caste Majhbi, resident of Ward No.8, Dirba, were going to our work on foot, as Satnam Singh also works with me. When we reached at Committee Road, near Cremation Ground's Turn, Dirba, in the meantime, my brother Gurpreet Singh, who was returning home from North India Pipe Factory, Dirba, after doing night shift duty, met us, and, he started talking to us. While we all three were talking to each other, in the meantime, Gogi Singh son of Amar Singh, Cate Majhbi, resident of Ward No.8, Dirba, came on foot from front side i.e. Committee's side, and, he was holding a bottle of acid in his hand. As soon as he came, he said that "Today, I will teach you a lesson for quarreling with me." Thereupon, he threw acid from the bottle on all three of us, and, thereafter fled from the spot along with empty bottle of acid. Due to burning sensation of acid fallen on us, we raised hue and cry, whereupon, my father Baldev Singh came at the spot, and, many other persons also gathered there.

2 of 15

Due to falling of some acid on upper part of my right arm, my shirt was burnt, and, my arm also received burns from shoulder slightly downwards elbow. Some drops of acid also fell on right side of my face, and, neck, which left marks thereon. Acid fell on left elbow of my brother Gurpreet Singh and it got burnt. Acid also fell on face and chest of Satnam Singh son of Joga Singh, resident of Ward No.8, Dirba, which resulted in burns thereon. The motive behind this incident is that previously, we had an argument with Gogi Singh, and, because of that grudge, he threw acid on us. My father Baldev Singh arranged conveyance and got us admitted at Hospital, Kohrian. From there, the doctor referred Satnam Singh to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, because much acid had fallen on him. I and my brother Gurpreet Singh are undergoing treatment there itself. I have got recorded my statement and heard it, which is correct. Legal action be taken against Gogi Singh."

3. On the basis of the above statement, the instant FIR was

registered against the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the investigation in

the matter was carried out. The statements of witnesses and co-injured

were recorded. The Medico Legal Reports (hereinafter referred to as

'MLR') of injured persons were taken into possession. The burnt clothes

of the injured/victims were also taken into possession, vide separate

recovery memo. On 16.09.2007, the appellant-accused was arrested.

During the course of interrogation, on 18.09.2007, the appellant-accused

disclosed that on 12.09.2007, he threw acid on Preet Singh, Gurpreet

Singh and Satnam Singh, and, that he kept concealed the empty bottle of

acid, underneath the heap of sand, lying in verandah of his house. His

3 of 15

disclosure statement was reduced into writing, which was proved on

record as Ex.PW7/G, and, in pursuance thereof, he led the police party to

the disclosed place and got recovered the empty bottle of acid from there.

The recovered bottle was emitting smell of acid, which was taken into

possession vide separate recovery memo. After completion of the

investigation, Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the

concerned Illaqa Magistrate. Finding the case exclusively triable by the

court of Sessions, the learned Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the

court of Sessions vide committal order dated 22.02.2008.

PROCEEDINGS OF TRIAL COURT

4. Finding a prima-facie case, the appellant-accused was

charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307

of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution,

in order to substantiate the allegations against the appellant-accused,

examined nine witnesses in total. During the course of trial, the learned

Public Prosecutor, vide his separately recorded statements, gave up PWs

HC Jarnail Singh, HC Sukhwant Singh, and, ASI Jaswant Singh, being

unnecessary, and, also gave up PW Rajinder Singh, being won over by

accused. The appellant-accused, in his statement recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C., though, opted to lead evidence in his defence, however, no

witness was examined on his part. He also denied all the allegations, as

levelled against him, and, pleaded innocence, as being falsely implicated

in the present case.

5. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire oral and

4 of 15

documentary evidence, as led by the prosecution, convicted the appellant-

accused for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC, vide the

impugned judgment.

SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued

that all the facts and circumstances, as proved on record by the

prosecution, do not establish any intention or knowledge of the appellant-

accused to cause death, therefore, even if the case of the prosecution is

considered to be a gospel truth, no offence whatsoever is made out under

Section 307 of IPC. He further argued that there is a gross lacuna in the

investigation, as the empty bottle, purportedly containing acid, which was

allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant-accused, was not sent

for FSL examination, to establish the claim regarding its being actually

containing acid, which was used for commission of present crime. So, in

the absence of any report from any expert concerned, regarding use of

acid in commission of alleged offence, the appellant-accused cannot be

held guilty. He further pointed out that there are various discrepancies in

the statements of injured/victims and the Investigating Officer, and, that

the story of the prosecution, as put forth, has not been proved, beyond

reasonable doubt, against the appellant-accused. Therefore, the impugned

verdict of conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further

argued that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the major

improvements in the version of the victims/ injured witnesses, however,

the learned trial court, erroneously considering the same as minor

5 of 15

contradictions, wrongly held the appellant-accused guilty of the charges

framed against him.

7. Per contra, the learned State counsel, while drawing

attention of this Court towards the statements of complainant Preet Singh

(PW4), and, victims/injured eye witnesses Satnam Singh (PW5) and

Gurpreet Singh (PW6), stated that all these three material witnesses have

proved the case of prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. He also

referred to the statement of Dr. Prabhat Kumar (PW1), SMO, Civil

Hospital, Sangrur, who had medico-legally examined Satnam Singh, and,

to the statement of Dr. Kirpal Singh (PW2), Medical Officer, CHC,

Kohrian, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, who had medico-legally

examined Gurpreet Singh and Preet Singh (complainant), and, stated that

all the victims/injured had suffered serious injuries, which are sufficient

to prove the intention (mens rea) of the appellant-accused, to cause their

death. Lastly, he has submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated

the entire evidence in its right perspective, therefore, the impugned

verdict of conviction, and, order of sentence, do not require any

interference.

REASONS

8. With the able assistance of both the learned counsels, this

Court has also examined, in detail, the entire oral as well as documentary

evidence, as led by the prosecution.

9. Before adverting to the evidence, as led by the prosecution, it

is apt to first deal with the legal propositions, and, essential ingredients,

6 of 15

which attract the provisions of Section 307 of IPC, which are discussed

hereunder:-

(i) the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause death;

(ii) some overt act taken towards it;

(iii) that overt act is capable of causing death;

(iv) and that act falls short for completion of the ultimate object.

10. The intent of the accused can be gathered from the nature of

the act actually committed, and, from the concerned circumstances

attached to it. Therefore, let us examine, whether the prosecution is able

to prove all the ingredients, as required to bring home guilt of the

appellant-accused, under Section 307 of IPC.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE

11. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

Dr. Prabhat Kumar, SMO, Civil Hospital, Sangrur, as PW1, who had

medico-legally examined Satnam Singh on 12.09.2007. He proved on

record the carbon copy of his MLR, as Ex.PA. As per the MLR (Ex.PA),

following injuries were found on the body of Satnam Singh:-

"1. Complaint of irritation in the eye and was referred to eye specialist.

2. Fresh acid burn marks on right side of face, right ear, forehead, right side of neck, front of neck and upper part of chest, with reddish erythma on the surrounding area, likely to cause disfigurement.

3. Burn mark on the right arm on the lateral side.

4. Burn mark on the front of right forearm, kept under observation for disfigurement.

7 of 15

Nature of injures: For injury no.1, was kept under observation for eye specialist report, and, 2, 3 & 4 were kept under observation for disfigurement. Kind of weapon used: Burn injuries Probable duration of injuries: Within 24 hours."

12. Further, Dr. Kirpal Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Kohrian,

was examined as PW2, who had medico-legally examined Gurpreet Singh

and Preet Singh (complainant). He proved on record the carbon copies of

their MLRs, as Ex.PD & Ex.PF respectively. As per the MLR (Ex.PD),

following injuries were found on the body of Gurpreet Singh:-

"1. 9 x 5 cm acid burn injury, moist, red in colour, superficial in nature, situated over upper back part of left forearm. Advised surgical specialist's expert opinion at C.H., Sangur Kind of weapon used: Acid burn injury Probable duration of injuries: Within 0 to 6 hours."

As per the MLR (Ex.PF), following injuries were found on

the body of Preet Singh (complainant):-

"1. Multiple small about 8 in number, burn reddish, moist, marks, superficial in nature, situated over right cheek. The lesions are present in area of 7 x 5 cm.

2. Multiple tiny moist, reddish, scars over right side of neck.

3. 37.0 cm x 10 cm, moist reddish burn, superficial in nature, burn injury mark, situated over right arm and upper part of forearm, especially over the lateral aspect of the limb.

Note: Injury No. 1, 2 and 3 are subjected to surgical

8 of 15

specialist's expert opinion at C.H., Sangrur. Kind of weapon used: Acid burn injury Probable duration of injuries: Within 0 to 6 hours."

13. Furthermore, Dr. Ravinder Kaler, Medical Officer, Civil

Hospital, Sangrur, was examined as PW3, who stated that injured/victims

Gurpreet Singh and Preet Singh, were admitted in the hospital on

12.09.2007, and, were referred to the surgical ward on 13.09.2007, and,

that he treated both these patients. He proved on record their bed-head

tickets as Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B respectively. He also proved on record

his opinion, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D & Ex.PW3/E respectively, qua

injured/victims Preet Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Satnam Singh, regarding

the injuries suffered by them.

14. All the aforesaid three witnesses were put to cross-

examination, but, nothing material could be elicited therefrom to impeach

their credibility. Therefore, in the light of such un-impeached medical

evidence, corroborated by respective MLRs of the injured/victims, duly

proved on record, this Court can safely conclude that all the

injured/victims did receive acid burn injuries on their persons.

15. Now, the moot question before this Court, which needs to be

answered is the identity of the wrongdoer, at whose hands, the

injured/victims suffered the aforesaid acid burn injuries. For this purpose,

the prosecution has examined its star witnesses, i.e. all the three

injured/victims, who have, without any hesitation, and, unambiguously,

narrated the entire incident, wherein, they had suffered the aforesaid

injuries at the hands of the present appellant-accused. Perusal of their

9 of 15

testimonies, as available on record, reveals that the same are sufficient to

clear the clouds of suspicion, the gist of which is extracted hereafter.

16. Prosecution had examined Preet Singh (complainant) as

PW4, who stated that on 12.09.2007, while he, along with Satnam Singh

and Gurpreet Singh (complainant's brother), was present on Committee

Road, near Cremation Ground, the appellant-accused came there, who

was carrying a bottle of acid, and, threatened to teach them a lesson for

messing with him and thereupon, he threw acid upon them from the bottle

in his hand. Thereafter, the appellant-accused fled from the spot along

with the empty bottle of acid, and, upon hearing their hue and cry, his

father Baldev Singh came at the spot and admitted all three of them at

Civil Hospital, Kohrian. The acid fell on his right arm, and, some drops

of the acid also fell on his chest and face. As a result of inflammation of

acid, he suffered pain and his skin was badly burnt, and, even his shirt

also got burnt due to this acid attack. Not only this, even at the time of

recording this statement, he complained of pain in his right arm, which

has ultimately resulted in disfigurement of his arm. As regards the

injuries suffered by his companions, he stated that Gurpreet Singh

suffered burn injuries on his left arm, and, Satnam Singh suffered burn

injuries on his face, right eye and chest. He specifically stated therein, a

past altercation between him and the appellant-accused, to be the motive

behind commission of this deadly incident. During his cross-

examination, it surfaced that he remained admitted in Civil Hospital,

Sangrur, for 25 days. However, despite being put to lengthy and incisive

10 of 15

cross-examination by the defence counsel, nothing material could be

extracted to impeach his credibility, except some minor contradictions

with regard to the time and place of occurrence, which are likely to occur

in the testimony of a truthful witness.

17. To the same effect is the testimony of co-injured/victims,

namely, Satnam Singh and Gurpreet Singh, examined as PW5 and PW6

respectively, by the prosecution. They have corroborated the testimony of

Preet Singh (complainant) in its entirety, and, have supported the case of

the prosecution. Both these witnesses have also specifically stated in their

respective statements, recorded before the Court, that it was the

appellant-accused, who threw acid upon them, with an intent to kill them.

Both these witness have also withstood the cross-examination of the

defence and no material contradictions or infirmities could be elicited

therein.

18. The prosecution has also examined the Investigating Officer,

A.S.I., Nirmal Singh, as PW-7, who proved on record the recovery memo

prepared during investigation, and, also the disclosure statement of

appellant-accused as well as the recovery effected pursuant thereto.

19. From a conjoint reading of the above testimonies, it stands

established that the injured/victims suffered acid burn injuries, pursuant

to an acid attack by the appellant-accused on account of some previous

enmity, and, there are no reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the

injured witnesses, a higher evidentiary value being attached to the same.

11 of 15

Now, it is to be considered whether the act of the appellant-

accused, falls within the ambit of Section 307 of IPC or not.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that all

the evidence, as proved on record, do not establish that the intention or

knowledge of the appellant-accused was to cause death, as the injured

persons had suffered simple injuries. Therefore, it can be inferred from

the nature of the consequences of the act that intention of the appellant-

accused was only to cause injuries and not death. Therefore, he is only

liable to be punished for causing simple hurt and no for an offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

20. This Court is unable to accept the argument, as put forward

by learned counsel for the appellant-accused. The injuries actually caused

are not the only criteria to gather the intention of a wrongdoer, but, must

be inferred from the totality of all the facts and circumstances, in a given

case, which must be carefully examined. The result of an act does not

always necessarily indicate the intention of the wrongdoer. Here is a case,

where the complainant while entering in the witness box has categorically

stated that, with an intention to kill, the appellant-accused threw acid

upon him and his companions. Further, while deposing before the Court,

he has also stated that the injury caused by acid, on his right arm, was still

painful and it disfigured his arm. All the injuries have been suffered by

the injured persons, caused due to acid burns, which include injury on eye

of one of the victims. Though, the injuries were declared as simple in

nature, however, sometimes, nature of the injury actually caused, may not

12 of 15

always offer assistance to gather the intention of the wrongdoer, but, the

intention of an accused has to be inferred from totality of all the facts and

circumstances. Sometimes, an act which is sufficient in ordinary course

of nature, to cause death, may not constitute an offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC, if the intention or knowledge is absent. However, if

the knowledge and intention is present and even the act results in simple

injury or no injury, still the accused can be held guilty of an offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC. This is a case of acid attack,

wherein, weapon of offence was not an ordinary one. Acid is a coercive

and dangerous substance, which is sufficient to cause permanent

disfigurement and eminent threat to the life of the victim. Therefore, this

Court can safely infer that the intention of the appellant-accused, as

elicited from afore-discussed evidence, goes on to constitute an offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

21. Insofar as the argument raised by learned counsel for the

appellant-accused regarding non-sending the empty bottle, as recovered

pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant-accused, to FSL for its

examination is concerned, this Court does not find any major dent in the

prosecution's case on account of this lapse, since, all the three doctors, as

examined by the prosecution, have categorically held that the victims

have suffered burn injuries, due to acid attack. The appellant-accused

cannot claim any benefit on account of such minor lapses on the part of

the investigation agency. Moreover, it was not the case of the defence,

throughout the trial, that the injured/victims have not suffered the injuries

13 of 15

because of acid.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has also drawn

attention of this Court towards the compromise deed, which was placed

on record, before this Court as Annexure A-1. The compromise deed is of

28th September, 2013, i.e. after the pronouncement of the impugned

judgment of conviction, and, order of sentence, and moreover, no efforts

were made by the appellant-accused to prove the veracity of such

compromise. Therefore, the compromise cannot be taken into

consideration.

23. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused, when

could not succeed in overcoming the hurdles, as discussed above, prayed

for a lenient view on the ground the appellant-accused was 18 years of

age at the time of the occurrence of the offence, who has already suffered

the agony of continuance of trial for more than 17 years. He further

submitted that the appellant-accused is not a previous convict, and, is not

involved in any other criminal case, after being released on bail by this

Court. For this, reliance has been placed on the custody certificate, as

placed on record by learned State counsel, to submit that the appellant-

accused has already suffered incarceration for 03 years, 01 month and 01

day, out of the total sentence of 07 years, as imposed upon him. He

accordingly made a prayer to reduce the sentence of the appellant-

accused to the period already undergone by him.

26. This Court finds substance in this submission made by the

learned counsel for the appellant- accused. From the record it is revealed

14 of 15

that the appellant-accused was 18 years of age, when he was arrested for the

commission of the present crime, and, the custody certificate also shows that

he has already undergone imprisonment for 03 years, 10 month and 03 days

and is not involved in any other case. It seems that the appellant has

mended his ways and is now settled in the mainstream of the society.

Therefore, considering the age of accused, aggravating and mitigating

circumstances, while maintaining balance between deterrence against crime

viz-a-viz re-formative approach of punishment, this Court deems it

appropriate to reduce the period of sentence, as imposed upon the appellant-

accused, from RI for seven years to RI for five years. However, it is also

appropriate to enhance the amount of fine from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, to

be equally distributed as compensation, to all the three injured/victims, who

have suffered injuries.

CONCLUSION

27. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The

impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.08.2012 is upheld. However, the

sentence imposed upon the appellant-accused is reduced from RI for seven

years to RI for five years, and, he is directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, to

be equally distributed as compensation, to all the three injured/victims, and,

in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for

two months.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

27.01.2023 devinder Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

15 of 15