Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1017 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-09-08

S.S.SARON

body2004
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against judgment and order dated 7.8.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 326, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC - for short) recorded by the learned trial Magistrate has been maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC has been reduced from one year to nine months. Besides, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of nine months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC have been maintained. Except for the modification in the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC, the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. 2. Case FIR No. 253 dated 7.12.1985 was registered on the statement of Bachittar Singh son of Nand Singh Jat resident of village Daula aged about 55 years. It was stated by the complainant that he was joint cultivation of his land with his brothers Ikattar Singh and Mukand Singh. On the date of occurrence i.e. 7.12.1985 at about 12 midnight, Mukand Singh his brother along with his son Sukhdev Singh and their Siri (a paid agricultural worker) Darshan Singh (petitioner), had gone to irrigate the fields. Suddenly at about 2 a.m. Darshan Singh (petitioner) called Bachittar Singh (complainant) from outside the house saying that Sukhdev Singh (nephew of complainant) has sustained injuries by failing down in the khal (water course) due to its being dismantled. Hearing this, the complainant opened the door upon which, Darshan Singh (petitioner) threatened the complainant saying that he would be taught a lesson for not giving him the money which he (complainant) had agreed to give him (petitioner) for undertaking the treatment of ill effects of pesticides that he had suffered while spraying the same on the narma (cotton) crop. Saying this the petitioner gave a straight gandassa blow from its sharp side on the head of the complainant Bachittar Singh which hit him on the right side, of his head. At this the complainant raised an alarm on which his brother Ikattar Singh, who was sleeping in the adjoining room at once came there after opening the door. Saying this the petitioner gave a straight gandassa blow from its sharp side on the head of the complainant Bachittar Singh which hit him on the right side, of his head. At this the complainant raised an alarm on which his brother Ikattar Singh, who was sleeping in the adjoining room at once came there after opening the door. Darshan Singh (petitioner) again gave a gandassa blow which hit on the right ear and the head of the complainant. The pointed head of the gandassa also hit the right shoulder of the complainant as a result of which fell down. The brother of the complainant raised a noise of being killed, on which the petitioner again gave a gandassa blow from its reverse side, which hit on the left side of the head of the complainant. At that time, the complainant was wearing a turban. On hearing the noise of the complainant, his brother, Chand Singh while coming out of his house raised a lalkara that he was coming. As a result of which the accused ran away along with his gandassa. After 10-15 minutes, Sukhdev Singh nephew of the complainant come to the house and stated that he had been caused injuries by the petitioner at about 1-1/2 a.m. while irrigating by the fields. Sukhdev Singh and the complainant were brought to the hospital at Gidderbaha in a tractor of Chand Singh. Sukhdev Singh and the complainant were medico legally examined. On the statement of Bachittar Singh, the FIR was registered. 3. After investigating the case, the police filed challan. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, finding a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 326/325/452 IPC to be made out vide his order dated 25.2.1986, charged the petitioner for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Bachittar Singh and Sukhdev Singh with instrument of cutting i.e. Gandassa and kassi respectively and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The petitioner was also charged for voluntarily causing hurt to Bachittar Singh and Sukhdev Singh with a gandassa and kassi respectively which were instruments of cutting and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The petitioner was also charged for voluntarily entering the house of Bachittar Singh with an intent to commit an offence i.e. under Section 326/324 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The petitioner was also charged for voluntarily entering the house of Bachittar Singh with an intent to commit an offence i.e. under Section 326/324 IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the charge had been framed, the learned A.P.P. submitted an application dated 23.2.1987 for amendment of the charge stating that the accused had been charged for causing grievous and simple hurts to Bachittar Singh and Sukhdev Singh with an instrument of cutting i.e. Gandassa only in both the charges under Sections 326 and 324 IPC. Actually Sukhdev Singh had been caused injuries with kassi and Bachittar Singh with gandassa. According to the prosecution, the accused at some subsequent stage was likely to plead some prejudice on this accord. Thereafter, it was prayed that the charge be amended to the extent that after Gandassa the words; "and kassi respectively" are to be added. The defence counsel did not object to the amendment of the charge which was accordingly amended on 18.3.1987. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses and its evidence was closed on 22.8.1988. The statement of the petitioner was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C. - for short) in which he stated that he was innocent and that a false case has been registered against him. In defence, he examined Babu Singh son of Gurdial Singh. 5. The learned trial Court, as already noticed, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Besides, the petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 452 IPC. Besides, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The afore- mentioned sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, as already noticed, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to nine months under Section 326 IPC. Besides, the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The afore- mentioned sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, as already noticed, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to nine months under Section 326 IPC. The said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, as already noticed, is assailed in this revision petition. 7. Shri M.S. Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing the case on merit for sometime, has confirmed his submissions to the quantum of sentence. He has contended that the occurrence in the case took place on 7.12.1985 and at that time the petitioner was aged 24 years. Now with the lapse of time he has matured considerably and he is aged 44 years. He has been maintaining peace in the village and has not committed any offence thereafter. Besides, no useful purpose would be served in now sending him to jail. 8. In response, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State has contended that the petitioner has caused grievous injury and, therefore, the sentence imposed is not liable to be reduced and that the same should be maintained and affirmed. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is appropriate to note that the occurrence in the case had taken place on 7.12.1985. Bachittar Singh complainant suffered four injuries at the hand of the petitioner. Out of the four injuries suffered only one injury i.e. injury No. 2 which was an incised wound 2cm x 1cm x cartilage cut deeply the inner sided of the right external pinna of the right external ear was found to be grievous. The other three injuries and one of them i.e. injury No. 3 which was an incised wound measuring 1cm x 1/2 cm in size 1cm away from each other, on the dorsum of the left hand 4cm below from base of the index and middle finger with diffused swelling present was found grievous. This was found to be grievous as there was a fracture. 10. Another aspect that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Doctor i.e. Dr. This was found to be grievous as there was a fracture. 10. Another aspect that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Doctor i.e. Dr. A.S. Chugh (PW-6) who examined the injuries in the case in his deposition before the learned trial Court stated that the injuries cannot be result of weapon produced in Court. In view of the statement made by the Doctor that the injuries suffered by Bachittar Singh and Sukhdev Singh could not be the result of weapon produced in the Court at the time of his deposition, the learned APP for the State requested that the witness was suppressing the truth and he be allowed to put leading question in the form of cross-examination. In his cross-examination, Dr. A.S. Chugh (PW-6) accepted as correct that injury No. 1 on the person of Bachittar Singh injured could be caused by gandassa while striking upper or lower edge of blade of gandassa and that similar was the position for injury No. 2. Independent of this position, it may be noticed that the petitioner has undergone one and half months of the sentence out the sentence of nine months that has been imposed. Besides, a period of about nineteen years has elapsed from the date of the occurrence. The petitioner himself has matured in these years and learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has not been involved in any other case. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, no useful purpose would be served, at this stage, to send the petitioner to custody. Therefore, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by the petitioner would meet the ends of justice. However, the fine imposed is liable to be enhanced. The petitioner, it is stated by his learned counsel, is working as a farm labour and has been a Seri. Therefore, it is contended that he should not be burdened. After considering the entire matter, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone. However, in addition to the fine already imposed, the petitioner is imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- more which he shall deposit in the trial Court within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone. However, in addition to the fine already imposed, the petitioner is imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- more which he shall deposit in the trial Court within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On deposit of the amount, the learned trial Court shall pay on amount of Rs. 2,500/- each to the injured Sukhdev Singh and Bachittar Singh. In the event of default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 13. With the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine, the revision petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.