Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 26 (PNJ)

Jagir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-01-06

KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2002
Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. This criminal revision petition was initially filed by five petitioners, Jagir Singh, Gulzar Singh, Balbir Singh, Mela Singh and Ajit Singh after their appeal against the judgment dated October 19, 1987 of the trial court, conviting and sentencing them under Sections 148, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 24.5.19188. Out of them, Mela Singh petitioner has died, as stated by his counsel during the course of arguments and not controverted by Shri I.P.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. 2. The petitioners (and Mela Singh deceased) were convicted under different offences and sentenced as under : Mela Singh U/S 325 IPC : Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Jagir Singh, Gulzar Singh, Balbir Singh and Ajit Singh under Section 325/149 IPC : Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Ajit Singh, Jagir Singh and Gulzar Singh U/S 324 IPC- Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Mela Singh and Balbir Singh U/S 324/149 IPC - Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Gulzar Singh and Jagir Sipgh U/s 323 IPC - Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Mela Singh, Jagir Singh, Gulzar Singh, Balbir Singh and Ajit Singh under Section 148 IPC - Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Substantive sentences of imprisonment on all the counts were made to run concurrent. In brief, the prosecution case is that on April 3, 1986, at about 7 A.M., Darshan Singh complainant who is Sarpanch, was going towards school, where construction work was going on. He was accompanied by his nephew Tarsem Singh who was a mason and had been engaged for the masonary work. When they reached near the village post office, Ajit Singh, Gulzar Singh and Jagir Singh, all armed with gandasis and Balbir Singh and Mela Singh (since deceased) petitioners, who were armed with Kirpan and dang respectively, were found standing there. On a lalkara being raised by Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh complainant and Tarsem Singh PW started running backwards. When they reached near the village post office, Ajit Singh, Gulzar Singh and Jagir Singh, all armed with gandasis and Balbir Singh and Mela Singh (since deceased) petitioners, who were armed with Kirpan and dang respectively, were found standing there. On a lalkara being raised by Balbir Singh, Darshan Singh complainant and Tarsem Singh PW started running backwards. They were, however, over taken by the petitioners, after being chased. All the five petitioners caused multiple injuries to the complainant with their respective weapons. When Tarsem Singh PW came forward to rescue him, he was also given several blows. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohinder Kaur (PW4), Satnam Singh, Didar Singh and Parkash Kaur. Both the injured were then taken to Civil Hospital, Tanda, where they were medico-legally examined on the same day i.e. April 3, 1986. ASI Joga Singh (PW7) recorded the statement of Darshan Singh (Ex.PA) in the hospital and on its basis this case was registered vide former first information report, Ex. PW7/A. 3. The trial court recorded the verdict of guilt against all the five petitioners and sentenced them as detailed above. The verdict of guilt, along with the sentence awarded, was up-held by the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the courts below should not have believed the prosecution case as there was delay in the lodging of first information report and also on account of previous enmity between the complainant and the petitioners. At the same time, he also stated that it were, in-fact, Darshan Singh complainant (PW1) and his nephew Tarsem Singh (PW3) who had caused injuries to Gulzar Singh petitioner during the occurrence which, according to him, took place at the house of Gulzar Singh petitioner. 5. This court need not to go into the questions of delay in the lodging of first information report and/or the alleged previous enmity between the complainant and the petitioners, because the occurrence was not disputed by the petitioners, either during the trial or even at any later stage. Their specific plea, however, is that the venue of occurrence was house of Gulzar Singh petitioner where Darshan Singh complainant and Tarsem Singh PW had caused injuries with Kirpan and dang respectively to him. But, as the trial court record shows, no attempt, even was made to substantiate this plea. According to them, Gulzar Singh petitioner was medico-legally examined, also. Their specific plea, however, is that the venue of occurrence was house of Gulzar Singh petitioner where Darshan Singh complainant and Tarsem Singh PW had caused injuries with Kirpan and dang respectively to him. But, as the trial court record shows, no attempt, even was made to substantiate this plea. According to them, Gulzar Singh petitioner was medico-legally examined, also. But, as it is, neither his M.L.R. nor the doctor who had, allegedly, medico-legally examined him was produced in defence evidence. As rightly observed by the learned trial court, the petitioners were at liberty to adduce evidence to prove the number/nature of injuries allegedly caused to Gulzar Singh by the complainant party and as not an iota of evidence was led to substantiate the defence version, there was no option but to discard it. And, once it is so done, the established cause of the prosecution that eight injuries including six incised wounds, and seven injuries including three incised wounds and two grievous injuries, were caused to Tarsem Singh (PW3) and Darshan Singh (PW4) respectively, remains un-rebutted. 6. It may also be, however, noted that, as it appears in evidence, the delay in lodging of FIR was due to the fact that because of multiple serious injuries received by the injured witnesses, they were earlier not in a position to make statements before the police. Therefore, the delay stands well-explained. 7. Lastly, finding that in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances it would not be possible to get the verdict of conviction set aside, learned counsel prayed that the petitioners may be released on probation as they have been in the corridors of criminal courts, at different levels, for the last about 16 years and the sword of criminal law has been hanging on their heads for such a long period. He further pointed out that during this period, one of the petitioners, Mela Singh, and the complainant, Dashan Singh, have- expired also. He also stated that no untoward incident had taken place between the parties after the occurrence and if the petitioners are released on probation, parties will be able to live peacefully in the village. In support of his prayer for release of petitioners on probation, he referred to the judgment of this Court, reported as 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 104 : [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 817 (Pb. In support of his prayer for release of petitioners on probation, he referred to the judgment of this Court, reported as 2000(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 104 : [2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 817 (Pb. & Hry.)], Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab, in which accused had been convicted under Sections 326, 148, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code 14 years back and as no quarrel had taken place between the parties after the incident, they were ordered to be released on probation. 8. As the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any valid ground for setting aside the verdict of conviction recorded against the petitioners, the, revision petition is dismissed to the extent it assails the verdict of conviction. But, in so far as the verdict of sentence is concerned, more than 16 years have elapsed after the occurrence, and there has been no untoward incident between the parties thereafter. Therefore, this court fells that the petitioners who are first offenders, may be able to redeem themselves if they are given an opportunity to do so. The verdict of sentence is, therefore, substituted with the verdict that the petitioners shall stand released on probation subject to furnishing of surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for keeping the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. They will, however, surrender to undergo their respective sentences if they are called upon to do so within this period. The surety bonds shall be furnished within a period of two months from today.