Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1398 (PNJ)

Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-10-24

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.5.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which, the appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2001, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajpura, convicting and sentencing the petitioners to undergo RI for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- each; in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo RI for three months under Section 326/34 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo RI for one month under section 324/34 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter as narrated in para no.1 of the impugned judgment are as under:- “On 23.11.1993, Ajmer Singh son of Budh Ram r/o Dera Jagadhari came to the police station and got DDR No.32 dated 23.11.93 recorded, that he is resident of village Dera Jagadhari. They are four brothers. The eldest is Kaka Singh, younger to him is Joginder Singh, then next younger to him is Prem Singh and he is the youngest. They are residing separately. On 23.11.1993, he and Kashmira Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh were sitting with the brother Prem Singh. In the meantime, Gurnam Singh son of Ram Sukh, his brother Karam Singh and Bant Singh son of Kishori Lal reached there. Gurnam Singh was armed with his Gandasi. Karam Singh was empty handed. Bant was armed with Lathi. On reaching there they told Ajmer Singh that he is helping Sarpanch Gurnam Singh, who has got him transferred to Faridkot. He will be taught a lesson for it. On this Gurnam Singh gave Gandasi blow on his brother Prem Singh. It hit on his right leg below the knee. Bant Singh gave lathi blow which hit on the side of right eye of his brother. He and Kashmira Singh tried to separate Prem Singh. In the scuffle Karam Singh also received minor injuries. His brother Prem Singh became unconscious. In the meantime, Karam Singh also reached the police station. It hit on his right leg below the knee. Bant Singh gave lathi blow which hit on the side of right eye of his brother. He and Kashmira Singh tried to separate Prem Singh. In the scuffle Karam Singh also received minor injuries. His brother Prem Singh became unconscious. In the meantime, Karam Singh also reached the police station. Both the injured were sent to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi with constable Balwinder Singh 3164, after filling the relevant forms, Prem Singh was subjected to medical examination and the doctor entered the medico legal report No.55. Injury No.1 on the person of Prem Singh was declared grievous with sharp edged weapon and injury No.2 was declared simple. Karam Singh was also subjected to medico legal examination and doctor entered medico legal report No.56. There were two injuries on the person of Karam Singh. Both the injuries were caused with blunt weapon and were declared simple. Investigation was started. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned and report under Section 173 was prepared.” 3. The accused were charged under 326/324 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, which are as under: PW1 ASI Megh Raj, deposed that on 4.12.1993, he sought police remand of Karam Singh accused. PW2 Dr. Swaranjit Singh, who medico legally examined Prem Singh injured and found two injuries, and opined that one is grievous in nature and other is simple. PW3 Prem Singh, the injured and eye witness. PW4 Ajmer Singh, the complainant, who lodged the FIR. He was also an eye witness. PW5 Karnail Singh, Naib Court, formal witness, proved Ex.PW5/A, copy of DDR. 5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. They examined Gurnam Singh DW1, Sultan Mohd. as DW2 and Mam Raj as DW3 and closed their evidence. 6. After analysing the entire evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced all the three accused vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2001. They examined Gurnam Singh DW1, Sultan Mohd. as DW2 and Mam Raj as DW3 and closed their evidence. 6. After analysing the entire evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced all the three accused vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2001. In appeal, accused Karam Singh was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 3.5.2003, by giving the benefit of doubt, whereas, qua Gurnam Singh and Bant Singh, the appeal was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgments of both the courts below, petitioners Gurnam Singh and Bant Singh have came up in this revision, which was admitted on 8.5.2003. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out. Injury no.2 on the person of Prem Singh has been described to be “incised wound 1”x 1/2” and it was attributed to Bant Singh with lathi. Injury no.1 has been opined to be grievous in nature without any Xray examination. 9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has contended that the prosecution case is fully proved and therefore, the learned courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 11. Dr. Swaranjit Singh, PW2, who conducted the MLR on the person of injured Prem Singh, found the following injuries: “1. incised wound 1/2” long x 1/2 Cm broad bone deep on the anterior aspect of Rt. lower leg 4” below the Rt. knee joint. Right tibia had been fractured and the fractured segment had come out through the skin. On the examination creptus movements positive. 2. Incised wound 1” long 1/2 cm broad 1cm deep on the Rt.eye just above the lateral canthus.” He opined that injury No.1 is grievous and injury No.2 is simple. Both the injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon. 12. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioners were very much present at the place of occurrence. The injuries caused are with sharp edged weapon and one of the injury was found grievous in nature. PW3, Prem Singh injured and PW4, Ajmer Singh have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular version. The presence of PW4 Ajmer Singh at the place of occurrence is fully established. The injuries caused are with sharp edged weapon and one of the injury was found grievous in nature. PW3, Prem Singh injured and PW4, Ajmer Singh have fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular version. The presence of PW4 Ajmer Singh at the place of occurrence is fully established. Thus, there is no scope to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial court, which is affirmed. The conviction of the accused petitioners under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of IPC are maintained. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the incident pertains to the year 1993. They are facing the agony of trial since long. Gurnam Singh accused is having nine children, seven girls and two boys, whereas accused Bant Singh is having three children. They were the government servants, and now they have lost their jobs, due to the conviction in this case. Both the petitioners have already undergone four months RI out of one year RI. They are the sole bread earners of their families. Therefore a lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences of the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them, subject to payment of Rs. One lac, as compensation payable to the injured Prem Singh. However, the sentence of fine including the default clause is maintained. The compensation of Rs. One lac only (Rs. 50,000/- by each petitioner) shall be deposited within three months from today, under the intimation to injured Prem Singh, and this Court, failing which, this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed without notice. 14. With the above modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.