Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1177 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. State of Punjab

2019-04-11

HARNARESH SINGH GILL

body2019
JUDGMENT : HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioners were tried for committing the offences punishable under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2002, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajpura, held petitioner-accused Dharam Singh guilty under Section 326 IPC, whereas the remaining accused-petitioners guilty under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioner Sukhwinder Singh was held guilty under Section 324 IPC whereas the remaining accused-petitioners were held guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused-petitioners were further held guilty under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were accordingly, sentenced as under:- Under Section Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine 326 IPC 3 years RI Rs.500/- each To undergo RI for 30 days 324 IPC 1 year RI Rs.300/- each To undergo RI for 20 days 323/34 IPC 6 months 200 each To undergo RI for 10 days 2. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Vide judgment dated 24.02.2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while partly allowing the appeal, acquitted the accused-petitioners of the offence under Section 326/34 IPC. However, their conviction under Sections 324 and 323/34 IPC was upheld. Consequently, sentence of accused-petitioner Dharam Singh was ordered to be read under Section 324 IPC and that of the remaining accused under Section 324/34 IPC. However, the sentence for the offence under Sections 324 and Section 324/34 IPC was reduced from one year to nine months. The sentence of petitioners-accused Mehma Singh and Rattan Singh was ordered to be read under Section 323 and that of Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Singh under Sections 323/34 IPC for the period for which they had been sentenced by the trial Court. 3. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 28.3.1994, ASI Shalinder Singh after getting registered a connected case against Jasbir Singh and others, recorded statement of Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh to the effect that on 27.3.1994 at about 8.00 p.m., he and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh, had been seeing the 'Band' in the marriage of Kaka Singh son of Ajmer Singh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh came there to see the 'Band' and after getting himself mixed with the 'Band' people, he started dancing. Sukhwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh came there to see the 'Band' and after getting himself mixed with the 'Band' people, he started dancing. He was stopped by Gurdas Singh son of Sadhu Singh from doing that, whereupon Sukhwinder Singh left the place in anger. At about 9/9.30 p.m., Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh armed with Gandasis, Mahima Singh son of Gurdit Singh and Rattan Singh son of Sadhu Singh armed with sticks came at the outer phirni in front of the house of Ajmer Singh. Dharam Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) for teaching a lesson for stopping his son Sukhwinder Singh from dancing with the band people. The complainant (Jasbir Singh) asked Dharam Singh not to pick up a quarrel. They had party factions due to Panchayat Election. Thereupon, Dharam Singh gave Gandasi blow, which landed in the middle of his head. Mahima Singh inflicted a lathi blow, which hit the right shoulder of the complainant, besides giving another blow on the backside of his waist. On his raising alarm to rescue him, Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh came forward, but Sukhwinder Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on the right side of the head of Bhajan Singh. Rattan Singh gave a stick blow on the left shoulder of Bhajan Singh. All the accused started raising their voice loudly. On hearing the said voice, Mam Chand son of Ram Ditta and Jaspal Singh son of Lal Singh came there, whereupon the accused fled from the spot. The reason for causing the aforesaid injuries, was that the father of Jasbir Singh, namely, Mohinder Singh had defeated Dharam Singh in the Panchayat election. On the statement of Jasbir Singh complainant a cross case for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with 34 IPC was registered in FIR No.25 dated 28.3.1994. After receipt of the X-ray report, offence under Section 326 IPC was added. 5. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Having found a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused. 6. The prosecution examined complainant Jasbir Singh as PW1, who deposed on the line of the version contained in the FIR, PW2-Bhajan Singh, who too toed the line of Jasbir Singh. Dr. Tarsem Khurana was examined as PW3. The said witness had medico legally examined injured Jasbir Singh. 6. The prosecution examined complainant Jasbir Singh as PW1, who deposed on the line of the version contained in the FIR, PW2-Bhajan Singh, who too toed the line of Jasbir Singh. Dr. Tarsem Khurana was examined as PW3. The said witness had medico legally examined injured Jasbir Singh. He proved the MLR Ex. PB. As per the said witness, as per X-ray report, injury No.1 was declared as grievous in nature. PW5-Dr. Jaswinder Kaur Mohi, proved X-ray report of complainant Jasbir Singh. 7. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they had falsely been implicated and claimed trial. 8. The learned trial Court had, as noticed above, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal filed by them was, as noticed above, partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 24.2.2006. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the occurrence in question was the result of a sudden fight having taken place at the spur of the moment. As a matter of fact, at the instance of the petitioners, FIR No.25 dated 28.3.1994 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 34 IPC had been registered against the complainant and party and the learned trial Court, in its judgment had categorically held the complainant and party, as aggressors. It is further argued that the injuries given to Jasbir Singh complainant and party, were in the self defence and there was neither any intention nor any premeditation of minds by the petitioners. Still further, it has been argued that there being no common intention on the part of the petitioners, their conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Alternatively learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the petitioners does not require any interference, then the prayer of the petitioners for reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon them to the period already undergone by them, may be considered. 11. 10. Alternatively learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the petitioners does not require any interference, then the prayer of the petitioners for reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon them to the period already undergone by them, may be considered. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel, has, while opposing the aforesaid arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the injuries inflicted on the person of complainant-Jasbir Singh and Bhajan Singh, cannot be said to have been caused at the spur of the moment and without prior meeting of minds, especially when all the accused-petitioners had come to the place of occurrence with Gandasis and Sticks. Having come to the place of occurrence with this kind of preparation, it does not appeal to the common prudence that there was no intention on the part of the accused-petitioners to commit the crime. Still further, it has been argued that as per the medical evidence on record coupled with the oral testimony of PW3-Dr. Tarsem Khurana, as regards injury No.1 on the person of Jasbir Singh complainant, clearly establishes the guilt on the part of the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not require any interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned State counsel and have also gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 13. Admittedly, in this case, injured-Jasbir Singh complainant had been caused various injuries on his person by the accused-petitioners. By way of medical evidence, it stood proved on record that injury No.1 on the person of Jasbir Singh, had been declared as grievous in nature. PW-3 Dr. Tarsem Khurana, who had medico legally injured Jasbir Singh, had deposed to that effect. Besides, the said witness, while medico legally examining injured Bhajan Singh, also found two injuries on the person of injured Bhajan Singh. 14. The weapon used by the accused-petitioners, while causing the aforesaid injuries on the persons of the injured, were sharp (Gandasi) as also blunt (stick). Both the Courts have, while passing the impugned judgments and order, rightly took into consideration the aforesaid material aspects. 14. The weapon used by the accused-petitioners, while causing the aforesaid injuries on the persons of the injured, were sharp (Gandasi) as also blunt (stick). Both the Courts have, while passing the impugned judgments and order, rightly took into consideration the aforesaid material aspects. Thus, in my view, the findings of the learned trial Court, qua the conviction of the accused-petitioners, do not require any interference by this Court. 15. Coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence in this Court took place on 28.3.1994. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial for the last more than 24 years. Admittedly, the petitioners and the complainant party are residents of the same village. Undisputed is also the fact that the accused-petitioners and complainant-Jasbir Singh and others, had filed cross-cases against each other. Complainant-Jasbir Singh and others have also challenged their conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below for various offences in FIR No.25 dated 28.3.1994, registered at the instance of the present accused-petitioners, by way of CRR-497-2006. 16. Custody certificates produced by the learned State Counsel show that petitioner-accused Dharam Singh, has already undergone 22 days, whereas accused-petitioners Rattan Singh, Mehma Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, have already undergone 15 days each, out of the total substantive sentence of 9 months imposed upon them. Additionally, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners states that two of the accused-petitioners, namely, Rattan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, have since passed away. 17. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars once again, to undergo the remaining sentence. Ends of justice would be suitably met, if the substantive sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the one already undergone by them. 18. In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, their substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, there shall be no modification in the sentence of fine. 19. Disposed of in the above terms.