Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
11. PW18 Sub-Inspector Balwan Singh seized blood stained earth, one khol of cartridge and one sikka from the occurrence place by preparing a Memo and recorded the statements of witnesses. He arrested the accused and recovered the weapons on the information furnished by them in their disclosure statements. On completion of investigation final report came to be filed in the case.
12. During the trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 27 and marked documents. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their statements were recorded. G Thereafter, two witnesses were examined in defence. The Trial Court acquitted accused Balbir Singh and found the remaining nine accused guilty. Out of them accused Naseeb was released on probation since he was found to be a juvenile. The remaining eight accused were convicted and senjenced as H stated earlier. BALWAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
13. On appeal to the High Court the appeal preferred by accused Subhash was allowed and he was acquitted of the charges and at the same time, the appeals preferred by the other appellants/accused were dismissed. Challenging their conviction and sentence six accused have preferred the present appeals.
14. Shri SushillSumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that there was inordinate delay in registering the FIR and it has come into existence after due deliberations to falsely implicate the appellants and the prosecution case should be discarded. He also contended that as per the testimonies of the eye witnesses accused Satish @ phakti and Satbir Singh gave individual gandasa blows on the ,heck of Bani Singh, whereas the post-mortem doctor has noticed single injury only on the neck of Bani Singh and hence the overt act attributed to Satbir Singh is doubtful and his presence itself is not established. It is his further contention that .out of four persons alleged to have been injured during the occurrence, two alone were e,xamined as witnesses and the non-examination of other two injured witnesses affects the prosecution case and makes it doubtful. Lastly, he contended that the occurrence had not taken place inside the house of Bani Singh and the appellants are falsely implicated due to party faction in the village.
15. Per contra, Shri Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, contended that it is midnight occurrence and the parties are known to each other, being residents of the same village and PW4 Rekha and PW5 Sudha have not only witnessed the occurrence but sustained injuries in the attack made by the assailants on them and their testimonies have rightly been relied upon and after the occurrence immediate attention was given to take the injured to the hospital and thereafter the police were informed and it cannot be said that there was undue delay in A this regard and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants are sustainable.
16. The prosecution case is based on the ocular testimony of PW4 Rekha and PW5 Sudha. They are the daughter-in-law 8 and daughter, respectively, of deceased Bani Singh. They have categorically testified about the brutal attack made by the appellants on victims by describing their overt acts during the occurrence. Both of them in their statements recorded during the investigation, as well as, in their testimonies have stated C that electricity lights were on in the house, at the time of occurrence. Their presence in the house cannot be doubted and they had no difficulty in identifying the assailants. Both qt them sustained injuries and the grievously injured PW5 Sudha was admitted in the hospital at 3.25 a.m. itself. The medical evidence is available on record. Rishikesh and Smt. Phulla D were also injured during the occurrence but were not examined. The testimonies of injured witnesses PW4 Rekha and PW5 Sudha are natural, cogent and trustworthy and non-examination of the other two injured witnesses does not, in any way, affect the prosecution case.
In a similar fact situation this Court in the E decision in Mano Dutt vs. State of UP. (2012) 4 SCC 79, held thus: "29. As per PW5, Dr. Surya Bhan Singh, he had examined Salik Ram Yadav as well as Nankoo on 22.10.1977 itself and noticed as many as five injuries on Salik Ram and four injuries upon the person of Nankoo. He stated that the deceased was the son of Nankoo, while Salik Ram was his brother. These injuries were suffered by them from a blunt object. 30: Salik Ram was examined as PW2 and his s.tatement is cogent, coherent, reliable and fully supports the case of the prosecution. However, the other injured witness, Nankoo, was not examined. In our view non-examination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection. would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. BALWAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [C. NAGAPPAN, J.] Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit." ……………… .
It is trite law that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished.
17. The contradictions and variations in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, in our considered view do not go to the root of the case and the substratum of the prosecution version remains undisturbed. It is to be borne in mind that both of them are rustic women and not tutored witnesses.
18. The occurrence had taken place in the midnight at 1.30 a.m. leaving one person dead on the spot and four others injured. Two of the grievously injured persons were immediately taken to hospital and the remaining two remained near the body in the house. The distance between the occurrence place and the police station is about 10 kilometers. PW18 Sub-Inspector Balwan Singh recorded the statement of PW4 Rekha at 9.00 a.m. in the occurrence place and the FIR came to be registered at 10.10 a.m. and the special report was delivered in the Court at about 11.30 a.m. In the facts of the case, we are unable to appreciate the contention of the appellants that FIR came into being after deliberation and there is nothing to suspect in the prosecution case. The Investigation Officer PW18 Sub- Inspector Balwan Singh has seized blood stained earth from the occurrence place and that clinches the situs of the crime. The contention of the appellants that the occurrence had not taken place in the house of Bani Singh is devoid of merit. In fact, Bani Singh immediately succumbed to the injuries and the homicidal death is established by the, medical evidence.
19. There was also motive for the oc:currence. The appellants nurtured a grudge against the victims on account of murder of Yudhvir, son of Gugan Singh, belonging to their party and one of the family members of the complainant side was involved in the said murder and that has culminated in the B occurrence.
20. While considering the involvement of Satbir Singh in the occur!ence, we find some difficulty. The eye witnesses PW4 Rekha and PW5 Sudha have testified Satish @ Shakti gave a C gandasa blow on the neck of Bani Singh and thereafter Satbir Singh gave a gandasa blow on the neck of Bani Singh. PW14 Dr. N.K. Chaudhary who conducted autopsy on the body of Bani Singh found a single injury on the neck of Bani Singh. Hence the overt act attributed to Satbir Singh, namely, attack on neck of Bani Singh with gandasa, becomes doubtful and his D presence cannot be said to be established and the benefit of doubt has to be given to him. But so far as the other appellants are concerned, the prosecution version is consistent, namely, that they were armed with the lethal weapons and attacked the deceased and others and the conviction and sentences E recorded by the Courts below are correct and does not call for any interference.
21. In the result the appeal preferred by the appellant Satbir Singh in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6674 of 2012 is F allowed and the conviction and sentences imposed on him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The other two appeals in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6673 of 2012 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6384 of 2012, are dismissed. G Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of