Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. It is equally significant that the weapon, which is F said to have been used to cause this injury to Gurdial Singh i.e. the 'gandasi,' was never recovered.
11. The Trial Court accepted the defence version in its entirety. It came to the conclusion that Gurjit caused an injury on the head of Jagsir Singh (deceased) in self- G defence i.e. after Jagsir had attacked his uncle Gurdial Singh on the head with a 'gandasi.' That thereupon, Jagsir Singh fell face down on the 'kassi' which had allegedly fallen from the hands of Gurdial. The Trial Court completely H acquitted the other accused Sukha alias Surjit Singh. The GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA v. STATE OF HARYANA 985 [S. A. BOBDE, J.] Trial Court concluded that Surjit had no role to play because A Sukhwinder Kaur, Jagsir Singh's widow, stated in her · deposition that Gurjit had struck Jagsir Singh on the head with the 'kassi.' The second 'kassi' blow, however, was given on the right side of the face of Jagsir Singh. Because she had not mentioned the nanie of the person who had given B the second blow on the face of the deceased, the Trial Court concluded, that the witness attributed the second blow also to Gurjit.
12. The Trial Court seems to have attached no C importance to the fact that the recovery of the weapon (the 'kassi) was made at the instance of the accused Surjit Singh. This was simply dismissed as highly improbable.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants, Dr. J.P. D Dhanda, placed reliance on Chandrappa & Ors v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, State of M.P. v. Ramesh & Anr (2011) 4 SCC 786 and Ranjitham v. Basavaraj & Ors (2012) 1 SCC 414 to submit that in an appeal against acquittal, interference by the Appellate Court is not E warranted in the absence of perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court. These judgments do not help the cause of the appellants because the High Cot• ' has given clear and cogent reasons to show that the jud~ment of the Trial Court was perverse and not based on the evidence on record. Further, Dr. Dhanda relied on Arun Raj v. Union of India JT 201 O (5) SC 1; and Kapildeo v. State of U.P. 1983 SCC (Crl) 311 to show that the offence committed by the appellants fell within the scope of Section 304 Part II of IPC G and not under Section 302 of IPC. It is pertinent to note that in Arun Raj (supra) this Court had rejected the defence of grave and sudden provocation and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Whereas in Kapildeo (supra) this Court altered the conviction from Section 304 H [2015) 2 S.C.R. A Part I to Section 304 Part II of IPC. The circumstances in the above cases were entirely different from the present case.
14. We might state at this stage itself that upon reading B of the evidence of Mander Singh (PW14), it cannot be said that Sukhwinder Kaur (PW13) stated that the second 'kassi' blow was given on the right side of the face of Jagsir Singh to mean that the second blow was also caused by Gurjit Singh alias Gora. The Trial Court also seems to have C missed the defence version, according to which Jagsir Singh received the second injury from the 'kassi' because he fell on the ground where the 'kassi' was lying, and not because Gurjit Singh caused it, vide the deposition of Kuldeep Kaur (DW1), wife of Surjit Singh.
15. As stated above, the Trial Court acquitted Surjit Singh completely and also Gurjit Singh of the charge under Section 302 IPC, accep~ing the defence version that Gurjit attacked deceased Jagsir Singh only to save the life of his E father – Gurdial Singh, who had allegedly been injured by Jagsir Singh. The Trial Court convicted Gurjit Singh under Part II of Section 304 IPC.
16. In appeal, the High Court reassessed the entire F evidence and came to the conclusion that it cannot be said to be the duty of the prosecution in the circumstances to explain injuries on the person of the accused, Gurdial Singh, particularly, since Gurdial neither offered himself for radiological examination nor had he disclosed the history G of his injuries to the doctor. The High Court opined that the non-explanation of injuries is insufficient to discard the case of the prosecution, if it otherwise inspires confidence and is worthy of credence. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Court and held that there is no reason to disbelieve H the statement of Mander Singh, the brother of the deceased GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA v. STATE OF HARYANA 987 [S. A. BOBDE, J.] and Sukhwinder Kaur, the widow, only because they were A near relations of the deceased. It is settled law, that the statement of a relative of the deceased cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he or she is an interested party.
In Anwar Ali v.State of U.P., (2011) 15 SCC 360, this Court rightly observed that once the prosecution has been able B to prove its case by leading admissible and cogent evidence with reference to statements of the witnesses, the same cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the wit:1esses are relatives of the deceased. In Kartik Malhar 'I. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614, this Court held that C even a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for 0 some animus or for some other reason. More recently, this principle was upheld in Ashok Rai v. State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 713, whereby this Court clearly stated that the evidence of interested witnesses is not infirm. The High Court has also disagreed with the Trial Court that the fight E took place at the spur of the moment and the accused had not conspired with each other to commit the crime, since there was no evidence to that effect.
17. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the F view that the circumstances of the case point out to the commission of the crime under Section 302 IPC, as observed earlier.
18. There is no doubt about the occurrence having taken place, in which Jagsir Singh was killed by the accused G and that his injuries were caused by 'kassis.' There is clear evidence that the accused party comprised of Gurdial Singh, his wife Surjit Kaur along with their sons Gurjit Singh and Surjit Singh. Gurjit and Surjit were armed with 'kassis.' There H A are two injuries made by the 'kassis'; on the back of the head and the other on the face of the deceased, Jagsir Singh. The eye-witnesses accounts of Mander Singh (PW13) and Sukhwinder Kaur (PW14), who were undoubtedly present, in no uncertain terms reveals that B Jagsir Singh was attacked by the accused party i.e. Gurjit Singh and Surjit Singh. Sukhwinder Kaur has stated that the accused Gurjit gave a 'kassi' blow on the back of the head of Jagsir Singh, as a result of which he fell. Further, that the second 'kassi' blow was given on the right side of C the face of Jagsir Singh.
The inference drawn by the Trial Court that Sukhwinder Kaur intended to name Gurjit Singh, as the person who also caused the second blow is unwarranted. The acquittal of Surjit Singh on that ground 0 is also not sustainable. Some element of confusion was sought to be created in the defence version by alleging, vide Kuldeep Kaur's (DW1) deposition that Jagsir Singh received the second blow because he fell after receiving the first blow on a 'kassi' lying beside Gurdial Singh, which cut his face E on the right side. 19.The Trial Court has come up with an inference, which is different even from the defence version. We consider it appropriate to accept the Judgment of the High F Court, which, after reading the entire evidence on this point, came to the correct conclusion that the two blows were caused by Gurjit Singh and Surjit Singh, who were both armed with 'kassis' and who had been exhorted to kill Jagsir Singh by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur.
20. We also agree with the Judgment of the High Court that the injury on Gurdial Singh is self-inflicted, in all likelihood. Gurdial Singh was said to have gone to the Primary Health Centre, Odhan at around 6.55 pm, even H though the incident had taken place at around 2.15 pm. The GURJIT SINGH ALIAS GORA v. STATE OF HARYANA 989 [S. A. BOBDE, J.] inordinate delay in seeking medical attention raises many A questions. In addition, he also refused to undergo radiological examination of the injuries and did not tell the doctor as to how and why he got the injuries. Gurdial Singh's conduct appears to be wholly unnatural and it is not possible to accept the defence version that Gurjit Singh B attacked Jagsir Singh (deceased) because Jagsir attacked his father with a 'gandasi.' As observed earlier, the failure to corroborate the existence of the 'gandasi,' has not been explained. 21.For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the High Court is upheld and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed. c