Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1435 (PNJ)

Nek Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-08-02

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dated 20.7.1993 by which their appeal filed against the order of the trial Court dated 23.1.1992 vide which they along with one Gurjant Singh were convicted under the provisions of Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced as under was dismissed :- Nek Singh (i) Under Section 326 IPC : To undergo R.I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for two months. (ii) Under Section 324 IPC : To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for one month. (iii) Under Section 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Chandan Singh (i) Under Section 326 IPC : To undergo R.I. for one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for two months. (ii) Under Section 324 IPC : To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for one month. (iii) Under Section 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. To occurrence took place on 18.6.1989 at 4.00 p.m. resulting in the lodging of present FIR, which was registered on 19.6.1989 at 10.45 a.m. In the incident, the petitioners were said to have caused injuries to Nihal Singh, Hardiyal Singh and Gurdev Kaur wife of Hardiyal Singh. The parties are related, Nek Singh @ Harnek Singh being the brother of Nihal Singh and Hardiyal Singh; Chanan Singh the second petitioner is related to Nek Singh @ Harnek Singh. The genesis of the dispute as explained is regarding the possession of the land, which was alleged that on the date of occurrence when the complainant with Hardial Singh was proceeding to hoe their cotton fields, they were obstructed by the petitioners & Gurjant Singh, which resulted in a scuffle in which the three persons namely Nihal Singh complainant, his brother Hardial Singh and Gurdev Kaur w/o Hardial Singh suffered injuries. The details of the injuries as depicted in the Medico Legal Report suffered by each of the injured persons are as below:- Injuries on the person of Nihal Singh (1) A lacerated wound triangle shape present on head on the occipital region. Fresh clotted blood present. Scalp deep. Advised X-ray. (2) An incised wound 8 cm x 1.5 cm present on the laterial aspect of the right hip joint. Fresh clotted blood present. Advised X-ray. (3) A bruise 12" x 1.5" present on the lateral aspect of the chest on the right side. Reddish in colour. Injuries on the person of Hardial Singh (1) An incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm present on the posterior aspect of the right for arm. Fresh clotted blood present. Advised X-ray. (2) An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm present on the medial aspect of the left forearm on lower part. Advised X-ray. Fresh clotted blood present. . (3) A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm present on the top of the head. Fresh clotted blood present. Advised X-ray. Injuries on the person of Gurdev Kaur (1) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm present on the top of the right shoulder. Clotted blood was present. X-ray advised. It was alleged that a Gandasa was used to cause the injuries, which were incised in nature. 2 The police after investigation submitted a challan against the petitioners and one Gurjant Singh son of Nek Singh and they were subsequently charged for having committed offence under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the petitioners examined a number of witnesses including the doctor who had examined the injured persons and opined regarding the nature of injuries which have been explained in the MLR PW-6/A. 4. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., petitioners claimed innocence and took up a plea that Chanan Singh has also suffered injury, which is as below :- Injury of the person of Charan Singh (1) An incised wound 1 cm x .25 cm present over the radial aspect of right distal forearm just proximal to distal forearm crease. Margins odunatous. Clotted blood present. 5 Apart from this, no specific plea of defence was raised by the petitioners. Margins odunatous. Clotted blood present. 5 Apart from this, no specific plea of defence was raised by the petitioners. The trial Court thereafter went on to convict the petitioners, but in appeal the conviction and sentence of the petitioners was maintained, whereas Gurjant Singh was acquitted. 6. In the present revision petition learned counsel for the petitioners states that there was a delay in lodging of the FIR, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and further the injuries on the person of Charan Singh have not been explained by the prosecution. On the strength of this, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that the case against the petitioners was false. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding the role of the petitioner in the commission of offences and the injuries only go to substantiate the case of the prosecution. According to him the conviction and sentences awarded by the courts below were perfectly justified in the circumstances of the case. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. Concededly, the parties are related and the injuries which have been suffered by the injured persons are serious in nature. There is no dispute about the identity of the petitioners. They have not even taken up any plea in defence. The mere fact that Chanan Singh also suffered injuries does not in any way falsify the case of the prosecution. There is no explanation as to why the petitioners chose to attack the complainant persons and the fact that the injuries are serious, the possibility of their being self suffered is more than remote. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is hardly any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below. The conviction as awarded is completely in order. The revision petition, therefore deserves to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the occurrence is of the year 1989 and the parties are related and the petitioners were about 45 and 46 years of age respectively at the time of date of occurrence and that by now they will be well advanced in age and it would be extremely hard on them to send them to custody to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. 11. 11. I have considered the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. The petitioners and the injured are related persons being brothers. The incident is of 1989 and petitioners have borne the burnt of the criminal proceedings for the last about 18 years. They would be well advanced in age now and absolutely well entrenched in life. 13. In my opinion, the end of justice will be adequately served, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to that of already undergone provide that they deposit the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each which shall be distributed equally amongst the three injured persons after due notice by the trial Court before whom the aforesaid amount shall be deposited within a period of three months. It is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, the sentence awarded to them shall revive and they shall be required to undergo remaining part of the sentence and their bail bonds would stand cancelled. 14. With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition is disposed of.