Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 476 (PNJ)

Pirthi v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-20

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment T.P.S. MANN, J. 1. The petitioners were tried for offences under Sections 325/324/323/149 and 148 IPC for causing injuries to Balbir Singh, Ram Phal, azad Singh and Mahabir, on 9.6.1986. Vide judgment and order dated 16.7.1996, judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi, convicted the petitioners for the said offences and sentenced them to undergo RI for three months each under Sections 148/149 IPC, RI for three months each under Sec.323 IPC, RI for six months each under Sec.324 IPC and RI for one year each under Sec.325 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, on 25.7.2002. The petitioners are now before this Court by way of revision filed under Sec.401 Cr. P. C. , whereby they have challenged their conviction and sentences, as mentioned above. 2. Azad Singh, one of the injured has also filed Criminal Revision No.1995 of 2002 with a prayer for enhancing the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners and for grant of adequate compensation. As both the revisions have been filed against one judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, they are being disposed of by one order. 3. According to the prosecution, the FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by complainant Balbir Singh on 10.6.1986. He stated therein that on the previous night it was turn of Azad Singh for taking canal water and subsequent thereto the complainant was to have the turn so as to irrigate his fields. Therefore, his brother Mahabir alongwith Azad Singh had gone to the fields. Infact, Azad Singh was to take the turn of water after Pirthi-accused. When Azad Singh took the turn, he did not find the patra (stopper), which was to be used in the water course as the same had already been put to use by Pirthi-accused. Azad Singh and Mahabir tried to search the patra and noticed that it was in the bandh of Pirthi. Azad Singh protested with Pirthi as to why the patra was used in the bandh. On this an altercation took place between them. Azad Singh and Mahabir returned to their fields. Azad Singh and Mahabir tried to search the patra and noticed that it was in the bandh of Pirthi. Azad Singh protested with Pirthi as to why the patra was used in the bandh. On this an altercation took place between them. Azad Singh and Mahabir returned to their fields. After sometime when Azad Singh and Mahabir went back for checking the nakka, which was at a distance of 11/2 acres from their fields, they found Pirthi, Baldeva and Pat Ram hiding there. On seeing Azad Singh and Mahabir they opened an attack upon them. An alarm was raised by Azad Singh and Mahabir, which attracted the complainant and Ram Phal to the said place. They found all the petitioners present there. At that time, Pirthi was armed with a gandasa while the remaining accused were carrying lathis and jailis. Pirthi gave a gandasa blow on the head of the complainant. Baldeva while armed with lathi and Pat Ram while carrying jaili pounced upon the complainant, as a result whereof the complainant fell down and could not see as to who had caused injuries to whom. After causing injuries, all the accused left the spot while carrying their respective weapons. On the next morning, Balwant and Hawa Singh reached the fields and they found complainant Balbir Singh alongwith Ram Phal, Azad Singh and Mahabir lying there in injured condition. All the injured were removed to the hospital where they were medico-legally examined. 4. After registration of the FIR on the basis of the aforementioned statement made by complainant-Balbir Singh, the investigation was carried out by HC Ami Lal, who prepared rough site- plan and recorded statements of the witnesses. Injury on left finger of right hand of complainant Balbir Singh was found to be grievous as there was a fracture of proxymal phalanx. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted by SHO, Police station, Narnaund in the Court against the petitioners. 5. The petitioners were charged for offences under Sections 325/324/323/149 and 148 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Dr. Anoop Singh, PW2 Dr. T. R. Garg, PW3 complainant Balbir Singh, PW4 injured-Azad Singh, PW5 injured-Ram Phal, PW6 injured-Mahabir and PW7 HC Ami lal. 7. When the prosecution case was put to the accused during their examination under Sec.313 Cr. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely, PW1 Dr. Anoop Singh, PW2 Dr. T. R. Garg, PW3 complainant Balbir Singh, PW4 injured-Azad Singh, PW5 injured-Ram Phal, PW6 injured-Mahabir and PW7 HC Ami lal. 7. When the prosecution case was put to the accused during their examination under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , they denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they were innocent. It was stated that the complainant party had cut the supply of water before the turn of the accused party came to an end. When Satyawan-accused lodged the protest, the complainant party threatened him and caused injuries to the accused persons. In their self defence, accused caused injuries to the complainant party. In their defence, accused examined DW1 Ishwar Singh, A. R. C. and DW2 Ram Mehar. 8. The trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above. The lower appellate Court also upheld the conviction and sentences of the petitioners after coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioners. 9. All the four injured persons have supported the prosecution case regarding infliction of injuries by the accused persons. The medical evidence corroborates their testimonies. Mere fact that no effort was made during the night by any of the injured to lodge the report with the police, is no ground to discredit their testimonies. The plea of the accused that it was the complainant party, which opened an assault and caused injuries to them in the first instance and only in exercise of private defence that they caused injuries to the complainant party, remained unsubstantiated on the file. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the learned Courts below. The occurrence in question had taken place about 24 years earlier. All the petitioners have been held guilty for causing injuries which fell within the ambit of Sections 325, 324 and 323 IPC, apart from them being members of unlawful assembly and, thus, liable under Sec.148 IPC. None of the accused has been shown to be a previous convict. The occurrence in question had taken place on account of taking of water turn. Apart from that there was no enmity between the parties. None of the accused has been shown to be a previous convict. The occurrence in question had taken place on account of taking of water turn. Apart from that there was no enmity between the parties. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo maximum RI for one year, as the sentences imposed upon them for various offences were ordered to run concurrently. Upon dismissal of their appeal on 25.7.2002, the petitioners were taken into custody and granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2002. The petitioners have already suffered a lot including the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1986. No useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to serve their remaining sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met by releasing the petitioners on probation after setting aside their sentences of imprisonment. At the same time, each of the petitioners can be ordered to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation, which could be further directed to be paid to the injured, as such. 10. Resultantly, the revision is partly allowed by setting aside the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners. Instead, they shall furnish probation bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Each of the petitioners shall also pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- at the time of furnishing of the probation bonds. The said amount be, thereafter, released to the four injured persons in equal shares. 11. The probation bonds be furnished within three months from the date of preparation of certified copy of the order. In the event of any of the petitioners failing to furnish the bonds and paying the amount of Rs.4,000/-within the stipulated period, he shall have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Courts below. The revision filed by the complainant is, accordingly, disposed of.