Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1232 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-15

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The facts of the case are as under :- At about 8.00 A.M. on 13.8.1985, Avtar Singh petitioner was cultivating his land adjoining the land of Darshan Singh complainant. Avtar Singh demolished the common watt of the field during cultivation. Sarwan Singh son of Darshan Singh tried to restrain Avtar Singh from demolishing the same on which there was an exchange of hot words. On the same day, at about 5.00 P.M., Darshan Singh alongwith his sons Sarwan Singh and Sajjan Singh was removing weeds from the paddy crop that accused Gurcharan Singh armed with kirpan, Avtar Singh armed with gandasi, and Bikkar Singh, Fauja Singh and Parkash Singh armed with Dangs came there. After raising lalkaras, accused Gurcharan Singh opened the attack and gave two kirpan blows on the head of Sajjan Singh, whereas Avtar Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of Swaran Singh. Accused Gurcharan Singh then gave two kirpan blows on the person of Sajjan Singh whereas accused Fauja Singh and Bikkar Singh gave a dang blow each on the head of Darshan Singh. On the receipt of the injuries, the injured fell down on the ground while the accused ran away from the spot. The injured were removed to the Primary Health Centre, Gharyala by one Bachan Singh in a tractor-trolley, where they were medically examined at about 9.00 P.M. The doctor had found as many as ten injuries on the person of Sajjan Singh, out of which injury Nos. 1 & 2 were declared as grievous; six injuries on the person of Sarwan Singh, all being simple in nature, and seven injuries on the person of Darshan Singh, all being simple in nature. On 14.8.1985, on the application of HC Avtar Singh, the doctor declared the injured as unfit to make their statements, and, therefore, their statement could be recorded on the next day, i.e., 15.8.1985. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged as under :- All the accused Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Gurcharan Singh Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Avtar Singh, Bikkar Singh, Fauja Singh and Parkash Singh d Under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Fauja Singh Under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Gurcharan Singh Under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Avtar Singh, Bikkar Singh, Fauja Singh and Parkash Singh d Under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Fauja Singh Under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused except Fauja Singh Under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Parkash Singh and Bikkar Singh Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Avtar Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Fauja Singh Under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The trial court relying primarily on the evidence of the three injured witnesses convicted and sentenced the petitioners and Parkash Singh accused as under :- Accused Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Parkash Singh under Section 326 read under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Parkash Singh under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years. Accused Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 3. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 4. In an appeal taken to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, accused Parkash Singh was acquitted in toto whereas accused Gurcharan Singh and Avtar Singh were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 IPC only, affirming their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC as awarded by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition has been filed by them. 5. I have gone through the judgment of the Courts below and find that they suffer no infirmity. 6. The trial Court has relied primarily on the evidence of the injured witnesses to hold that the case against the accused stood proved. It is true that some members of the accused party had also received injuries on their persons and the doctor opined that some of them were grievous in nature. 6. The trial Court has relied primarily on the evidence of the injured witnesses to hold that the case against the accused stood proved. It is true that some members of the accused party had also received injuries on their persons and the doctor opined that some of them were grievous in nature. However, Dr. Hakam Singh (DW-1), who has appeared in support of the defence stated that the nature and seats of the injuries suggested that they could have been self suffered or caused by a friendly hand. In this view of the matter, merely because the prosecution has not been able to explain the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused would not go to the root of the matter. Mr. T.P.S. Mann has, however, urged that the incident pertained to the year 1985 and seventeen long years have elapsed since that date. The accused have also undergone a protracted trial and have spent a decade and half in appeal and revision and this is also a matter of consideration in favour of the accused. He has also pointed out that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the incident had happened between parties, who were neighbours, over the demolition of a watt. He has accordingly prayed that the sentence of het accused be reduced in the circumstances. This argument of the learned counsel has merit. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners is reduced to six months from two years. The other part of the sentence i.e. the amount of fine and default clause will remain as it is.