Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 340 (PNJ)

Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-02-13

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 03.09.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 04.07.2000, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, was partly accepted, acquitting Sukhdev Singh, accused, and confirming the conviction and the sentence of Inderjit Singh, accused (now revision-petitioner). 2. The facts, in brief, are that Chattar Singh son of Gurdev Singh, and his father Gurdev Singh, were having their dinner, in their house, at about 9.00 PM. The bulb of the kitchen was glowing. Sukhdev Singh son of Harchand Singh, and Inderjit Singh, accused, his son, while standing on the roof of the verandah of their house were abusing them, on the ground, that they had got removed the water tap, which was installed in the street whereas, Chattar Singh and his father Gurdev Singh, had been unable to cause any harm to them. Gurdev Singh, on hearing abuses of Sukhdev Singh and Inderjit Singh, accused, went to the roof of the verandah and requested them not to do so, as the matter had already been settled by compromise, between them, but the accused continued abusing them. At the same time, Sukhdev Singh, accused (since acquitted), who was having a half brick, in his hand, threw the same towards Gurdev Singh, which hit his forehead above the left eye. Chattar Singh son of Gurdev Singh, after leaving his meals, in the mid, went to the roof top of the verandah and witnessed the occurrence. On account of the injury, on the eye of Gurdev Singh, he fell down on the roof of the verandah. The complainant raised alarm of do not kill do not kill. When the father of the complainant tried to stand up, Inderjit Singh, accused, pushed him with both his hands from the roof. Due to such push, Gurdev Singh, fell down, on the ground, from the roof, as a result whereof, his hip joint got fractured. Thereafter, both the accused ran away towards their house. In the meanwhile, mother of the complainant called his uncle Bela Singh. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh, was taken to the hospital. Due to such push, Gurdev Singh, fell down, on the ground, from the roof, as a result whereof, his hip joint got fractured. Thereafter, both the accused ran away towards their house. In the meanwhile, mother of the complainant called his uncle Bela Singh. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh, was taken to the hospital. Since his condition was precarious he was referred to the Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, on the next day where he remained admitted for a period of about one month. 3. On receipt of ruqa, from Civil Hospital, Maur, regarding the admission of Gurdev Singh, on account of the injuries, sustained by him at the hands of the accused, an application was moved seeking the opinion of the doctor, as to whether, he was fit to make statement. The doctor opined that he was not fit to make statement. Thereafter, the statement of Chattar Singh, complainant, aforesaid, was recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned. 4. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 452, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Ashwani Kumar (PW1), Chattra Singh, complainant, an eye-witness (PW2), Gurdev Singh, injured (PW3), Sub Inspector Balbir Singh, Investigating Officer (PW4) and Dr. Avtar Singh of Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital (PW5). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them that, in fact, Gurdev Singh, caused injuries, on the person of Jaswinder Kaur, mother of Inderjit Singh accused, with a stick. It was further stated that Gurdev Singh, fell on the ground, as a result whereof, he sustained injuries, on his hip, resulting into the fracture of hip joint. They also examined Shinder Pal Kaur (DW1), Jaswinder Kaur (DW2) and Dr. Ashwani Kumar (DW3). Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence. 7. It was further stated that Gurdev Singh, fell on the ground, as a result whereof, he sustained injuries, on his hip, resulting into the fracture of hip joint. They also examined Shinder Pal Kaur (DW1), Jaswinder Kaur (DW2) and Dr. Ashwani Kumar (DW3). Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court convicted the accused, for the offences, punishable under Sections 452, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal, which was partly accepted, vide judgment, dated 03.09.02, acquitting Sukhdev Singh, and confirming the conviction and sentence of Inderjit Singh. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by Inderjit Singh, revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the very out-set, submitted that, no offence, punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out, as the revision-petitioner, was not armed with any weapon, when he allegedly caused injuries, on the person of Gurdev Singh. He further submitted that the trial Court, was, thus, wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the revision-petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. For constituting the offence, punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that at the time of committing house- trespass, the accused must be in possession of deadly weapons. The language of Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, is plain and unambiguous. Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, lays down that whoever commits house trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment. In the instant case, the revision- petitioner was found hurling abusing at Gurdev Singh, while standing on the roof of the verandah of his house. In the instant case, the revision- petitioner was found hurling abusing at Gurdev Singh, while standing on the roof of the verandah of his house. When Gurdev Singh, went to the roof of his house, and asked him to desist from abusing him, he did not desist, but continued doing so. No doubt, the revision-petitioner was empty handed, yet he had gone to the roof of the verandah of the house of Gurdev Singh, after having made preparation for causing hurt to him or for assaulting him. Even Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, does not envisage that hurt should actually be caused, on the person of the victim. When Gurdev Singh, went to the roof of his house, he was pushed, by the revision-petitioner, as a result whereof, he fell down, resulting into injury on his hip joint, leading to the fracture thereof. Injury No. 2, on the person of Gurdev Singh, was declared grievous, in nature. Under these circumstances, the revision-petitioner committed the offence, punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, that the trial Count, failed to take into consideration, the defence version, which was most probable and natural, as a result whereof, there was miscarriage of justice. He further submitted that injuries on the person of Jaswinder Kaur were not explained by the complainant and the injured and, thus, they suppressed the very genesis of the occurrence. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, also does not appear to be correct. The Courts below after carefully scrutinizing the evidence of Chattra Singh, PW2, an eye-witness, Gurdev Singh, PW3, injured, Dr. Ashwani Kumar Ahuja, PW1, who medico-legally examined Gurdev Singh, and found injury No. 2 , on his person to be grievous, in nature and Dr. Avtar Singh Kharay, Registrar, Orthopaedics Department, Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital, PW5, came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offences, punishable under Sections 452 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The Courts below, in my opinion, were also right, in coming to the conclusion that the defence version was not reliable. No doubt, Dr. Avtar Singh Kharay, Registrar, Orthopaedics Department, Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital, PW5, came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offences, punishable under Sections 452 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The Courts below, in my opinion, were also right, in coming to the conclusion that the defence version was not reliable. No doubt, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, when appeared as DW3, found three injuries, on the person Jaswinder Kaur, mother of the revision- petitioner. According to the revision-petitioner, injuries, on the person of his mother, were given with a stick by Gurdev Singh. However, injury No. 2, on her person, was found to be penetrating wound with lacerated edges. This injury, could not be possible with a stick. Even Dr. Ashwani Kumar (DW3) stated that this injury could be possible with blunt pointed weapon. It was not the case of the revision-petitioner that the stick was having pointing ends. All the injuries were simple in nature. Two injuries on the person of Jaswinder Kaur were on non-vital parts of her body and the third was only complaint of pain of chest. Even otherwise, the occurrence, in this case, took place, at about 8.00 PM, whereas, Gurdev Singh, was medico-legally examined, at 9.30 PM, in Civil Hospital, Maur, and Jaswinder Kaur, was medico-legally examined, at about 11.00 PM. There was sufficient time with Jaswinder Kaur, to fabricate these injuries, on her person, in any manner. The mere fact that the injuries, on the person of Jaswinder Kaur, were not explained. by the prosecution, also did not mean that there was suppression of the very genesis of the occurrence. There was no possibility of Gurdev Singh causing injuries, on the person of Jaswinder Kaur, when he had already been pushed and fell down, resulting into fracture of his hip joint. In Ayodhya & others v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC(Crl.) 564, it was held that the prosecution was not bound to explain each and every injury, on the person of the accused, irrespective of the nature of the same. It was further held that if no explanation was offered by the prosecution, the prosecution case would not fail, on that score alone. The Revisional Court, cannot reappreciate and reappraise the evidence. In the instant case, the decision, rendered by the Appellate Court, cannot be said to be grossly erroneous. It was further held that if no explanation was offered by the prosecution, the prosecution case would not fail, on that score alone. The Revisional Court, cannot reappreciate and reappraise the evidence. In the instant case, the decision, rendered by the Appellate Court, cannot be said to be grossly erroneous. There is nothing, on the record, that there was non- compliance with the provisions of law. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, adduced by the parties. The judicial discretion exercised by the Appellate Court, cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. Under these circumstances, no interference, whatsoever. is called for, in the judgment of the Appellate Court. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel tier the parties. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The judgment, dated 03.09.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, confirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 04.07.2000, rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, qua the revision- petitioner, is upheld. 15. If the revision-petitioner is on bail, his hail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, is directed to take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, within a period of 2 months, and send the report immediately thereafter. 16. The District & Sessions Judge, Bathinda, is directed to ensure that the judgment is complied with by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in accordance with the provisions of law, within the stipulated period, and the report is submitted by him. 17. The Registry shall transmit the copies of the judgment, alongwith the records of the trial Court and the Appellate Court, forthwith, by all modes of communication. It shall put up the papers, within 5 days, after the expiry of the stipulated period, whether the report from the concerned Court(s) is received or not, for further action. Petition dismissed.