Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 568 (PNJ)

Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-22

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Urmila Devi was wife of Ranjit Singh, Warder in Central Jail, ambala. Satbir Singh present petitioner was colleague of Ranjit Singh and he was also posted as Warder in the Central Jail. Urmila Devi on 18th July, 1989 at 1.00 p. m. submitted written application/complaint Ex. PW-1/a to In- charge, police Post No.6, Police Station Ambala City. In the compliant, it was stated that her husband Ranjit Singh is posted as a Warder in Central Jail, Ambala. On the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1989 her husband had gone to perform duty in the jail at 9.00 p. m. She is residing in Govt. quarter in the jail premises. At about 10.30 p. m. one person Satbir Singh son of Ishwar Singh resident of village Daulatpur, who is also posted as Warder, scaled over the wall and came inside the quarter. He bolted the door from inside and caught hold of Urmila Devi with bad intention to outrage her modesty. She raised noise and there was scuffle between them. Satbir Singh fell on the ground and his head hit the wall. Urmila Devi also lifted a Danda and gave Danda blows to Satbir Singh in order to save her honour. On the noise, Roshan Lal Warder and Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Balbir Singh Warder were attracted to the spot. Satbir Singh after scaling the wall, ran away from the spot. 2. This complaint was submitted on 18th July, 1989 at 1.00 p. m. and on the basis of this complaint, case was registered and report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. Petitioner was tried by the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Ambala, who convicted him on 20th May, 1997 for offences under section 354 and 452 IPC and on both the counts, petitioner was awarded one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The trial Court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of pw-1 Urmila Devi, her husband Ranjit Singh PW-2 and Roshan Singh PW-3. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. In defence, he examined Dalip Kaur as DW-1, who was given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. Dr. The trial Court placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of pw-1 Urmila Devi, her husband Ranjit Singh PW-2 and Roshan Singh PW-3. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. In defence, he examined Dalip Kaur as DW-1, who was given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. Dr. A. K. Jindal dw-2 proved ten simple injuries on the person of the petitioner. Lachhman Dass was examined as DW-3. 4. Two courts below appreciated the evidence and held the prosecution evidence to be trustworthy and had not accepted the defence evidence. DW-3 Lachhman Dass had stated that petitioner was caused injuries. A suggestion was also given that when petitioner was sleeping outside his house, ranjit Singh and others have caused him injuries and to save police action, the story has been coined at the behest of Urmila Devi wife of Ranjit Singh. 5. The trial Court took into consideration that petitioner has not given any version in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. , therefore, no reliance has been placed upon the defence evidence. Petitioner had preferred an appeal. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the trial Court, upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. 6. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. S. Chahal, has strenuously urged that in fact, Ranjit Singh and others had caused injuries to the petitioner and to save themselves, Urmila Devi was projected as one who caused injuries. Counsel has submitted that occurrence has taken place in the night at 10.30 p. m. and the written complaint was submitted on the next day at 1.00 p. m. There is a delay of more than 14 hours. It is further submitted that in the cross examination, Urmila Devi had stated that she had not submitted any written complaint, but her statement was recorded in register in the Police station. Learned counsel has contended that even the written complaint was drafted by somebody else, as Urmila Devi was not aware of the alleged occurrence. Counsel has further submitted that in cross examination, this witness stated that name of the petitioner was disclosed by her husband Ranjit singh. Counsel has submitted that even the Investigating Officer was not examined and there are 3-4 material discrepancies in the testimony of Urmila devi PW-1, Ranjit Singh PW-2 and Roshan Lal PW-3. Counsel has further submitted that in cross examination, this witness stated that name of the petitioner was disclosed by her husband Ranjit singh. Counsel has submitted that even the Investigating Officer was not examined and there are 3-4 material discrepancies in the testimony of Urmila devi PW-1, Ranjit Singh PW-2 and Roshan Lal PW-3. The revisional Court cannot re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. The discrepancies are bound to arise in the testimony of witnesses, when they are examined after a long delay. The argument regarding discrepancies was raised before the two courts below. The two courts below, after assessing the evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution case aspire confidence and defence version is to be discarded. Therefore, revisional Court cannot substitute its opinion with the one formulated by the two courts below. No patent illegality or irregularity has been pointed out. Furthermore, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that petitioner had projected his version in a complaint instituted by him. The complaint was dismissed and an appeal was filed. The same was also dismissed. The orders passed in the complaint and in the appeal have not been placed on record. Therefore, the version of the petitioner already stands rejected. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1989. Petitioner has already suffered mental agony and pain of protracted trial for more than two decades. Counsel has further submitted that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was aged 40 years and now he has retired and is aged 60 years. He has many responsibilities of the family and in the last 20 years, petitioner has committed no other offence. 8. Taking the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner into consideration, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of one year awarded upon the petitioner under Sec.354 and 452 IPC is reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence shall run concurrent on both counts. With the modifications in the sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of.