Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 567 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-25

A.S.GARG

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. On 1st February, 1986, at about 5.30 P.M., Bhupinder Singh petitioner, aged 20 years caused injuries with a Datar on the person of Jaspal Singh in the presence of Balbir Singh P.W.3 and others. The Datar blow was given on the left thumb and the right little finger and also on the left side of the chest of Jaspal Singh, who as a result of the said injuries fell down. The accused further caused injuries with the reserve side of Datar on the other parts of the body. On the raising of hue and cry, the accused fled away along with the Datar. The incident was witnessed by Bhupinder Singh and Balir Singh who rushed to save Jaspal Singh. The prosecution story is that the petitioner and the complainant were playing football in the village and the accused committed some foul play in the game and there was some cheating. Therefore, there was exchange of hot words between him and Jaspal Singh, injured, which resulted into the inflication of injuries to Jaspal Singh. 2. The injured Jaspal Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Mahilpur where he was medico legally examined by Dr. Dilbagh Rai, P.W.1 on 1.2.1986 and the following injuries were found on his person : 1) There is an incised wound with clear cut margin deep on the front of the left side of the chest from the outer border of the sternum at the level of 4th inter costal space upto the anterior border of axilla at the level of 7th inter costal space. The wound is oblique, 18 cm long x 4 cms wide. The sub-cutaneous fat, fascia, inter costal muscles of medial 8 cm of the wound are cut, the internal memory. (Internal thoricic artery is cut and its branches are cut and is profusely bleeding) underlying pleura is also cut 10 cm x 0.5 cm. There is pneumothorax, the underlying lung is collapsed, the wound is stitched in layers. 2) There is an incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm deep on the proximal inter phalangeal joint (P.I.P.) on the back of right ring finger. 3) There is no oblique incised wound on the back of distal inter phalangeal joint 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 of right little finger. 2) There is an incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm deep on the proximal inter phalangeal joint (P.I.P.) on the back of right ring finger. 3) There is no oblique incised wound on the back of distal inter phalangeal joint 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 of right little finger. 4) There is an incised wound in between the thumb and index finger of the left hand on the palmer surface 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. 5) Patient complains of pain on the front of outer surface of the upper part of left thumb. 3. Injury No. 1 was declared as grievous in nature whereas injuries No. 2 to 5 were declared simple. Injuries No. 1 to 4 were caused by sharp edged weapons while injury No. 5 was caused by a blunt weapon. Probanble duration of injuries was about 3 to 4 hours. 4. On receipt of the copy of the medicolegal report ASI Jarnail Singh, P.W.4 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Jaspal Singh Ex. PD and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PD/3 was recorded at the Police Station. After completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned and sent up to stand his trial. 5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was being claimed by the petitioner that there was a litigation between the uncle of Jaspal Singh, namely, Kartara Ram and the father of the petitioner and because of the said enmity and exchange of hot words, the present case was fabricated. It was also being claimed that some unidentified persons caused the injuries to the injured when game of football in the ground was going on. However, on the testimony of Jaspal Singh, P.W.2 and Balbir Singh, P.W.3, the petitioner was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned trial Court. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. He was also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned trial Court. However, the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Hence this revision. 6. When a categoric statement has been made by the injured Jaspal Singh, P.W. 2 that he was given a Datar blows by the petitioner and when the witness has been cross-examined at length and nothing comes out of the same so as to create doubt in the testimony of the injured witness, it must be taken that the petitioner and none else inflicted injuries to Jaspal Singh. The occurrence took place at about 5.30 P.M. and there was nothing to suggest that it was dark or there was some doubt or mistake about the identity of the assailant. Therefore, in such circumstances one cannot imagine that the case of the petitioner would at all attract the benefit of doubt. The injuried remained in the hospital for 22 days. There remains absolutely no doubt that the petitioner had caused the injuries to the injured and there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner as awarded by the Courts below. 7. Only rigorous imprisonment for one year has been awarded to the petitioner. This is a very short sentence. The benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be denied where the sentence awarded is substantial and serve some purpose of deterrence and otherwise. The occurrence had taken place about 14 years ago. The injured as well as the petitioner were students at that time. The offence was committed within a spur of the moments. The petitioner, who was aged about 20 years at the time of occurrence, is not a previous convict. Therefore, his case can be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of asking him to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. 8. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. Therefore, his case can be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of asking him to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. 8. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on probation on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for a period of six months. During the aforesaid period of probation, he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Hoshiarpur. At the same time he is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs which shall be payable to the injured. However, if the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of costs and fails to furnish the bail bonds within a period of one month from the date that a certified copy of this judgment is supplied to him, his revision shall and dismissed and he shall undergo the remaining period of his sentence. The revision is disposed of accordingly.