Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1183 (PNJ)

Jasbir 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 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2002, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajpura, held accused-petitioner Gurdas Singh guilty under Section 325 IPC, whereas the remaining accused-petitioners were held guilty under Section 325 read Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioner Jasbir Singh was held guilty under Section 324 IPC, whereas the remaining accused were held guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused-petitioners were 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 325 IPC 2-1/2 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 accused-petitioners Harbans Singh and Bhajan Singh of the offences under Sections 324 and 325 IPC, whereas their conviction and sentence under Section 324/34 IPC was maintained. Sentence of accused Jasbir Singh under Section 325/34 IPC was reduced from 2-1/2 years to 1-1/2 years and that of under Section 324 IPC was reduced from RI for one year to RI for nine months. His conviction and sentence under Section 323/24 IPC was maintained. Sentence of accused Gurdas Singh under Section 325 IPC was reduced from 2-1/2 years to 1-1/2 years, whereas his sentence under Section 323/34 IPC was ordered to be maintained and that under Section 323/34 IPC was reduced from RI for one year to RI for nine months. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 28.3.1994, MLRs of Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh, residents of village Ram Nagar Sania, were received. On receipt of the said MLRs, ASI Salinder Singh, went to A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura, and recorded the statement of injured Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh. On receipt of the said MLRs, ASI Salinder Singh, went to A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura, and recorded the statement of injured Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh. Dharam Singh stated that on 27.03.1994, in the marriage of Kaka Singh son of Ajmer Singh, his son Sukhwinder Singh, went to see the 'Band'. He came back after some time and told that Gurdas Singh son of Sadhu Singh had slapped him. When at 9.00 p.m., Dharam Singh was going to the house of Ajmer Singh to make a complaint in this regard, then on the outer phirni of the village, Gurdas Singh met him. Dharam Singh asked Gurdas as to why he had beaten his son. Gurdas Singh told him that when the complainant did not vote to their party, then why had he come towards their side. When Dharam Singh told him that he and his family members would keep doing the same, then Gurdas Singh gave him a stick blow, which landed on the ring finger of his right hand. Another stick blow given by accused Gurdas Singh landed on his left elbow. He (Dharam Singh) started raising an alarm. In the meantime, Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh armed with Gandasi came to the spot and inflicted Gandasi blow on his person, which landed on the right side of his head. Gurdas Singh inflicted his stick blows on him which landed on his right knee, whereas another stick blow had landed on his upper jaw. In the meantime, Rattan Singh son of Natha Singh came at the spot. Harbans Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh armed with sticks also came at the spot. When Rattan Singh tried to rescue Bhajan singh, Harbans Singh had inflicted a stick blow on Rattan Singh, which landed on the back portion of his right arm. Another stick blow had landed on the back side of the left elbow of Rattan Singh. Bhajan Singh inflicted his stick blow on Rattan Singh on the left side of his head. Upon hearing the alarm raised by the injured, Pritam Singh and Mahima Singh came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled from the scene. The injured were taken to the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura on Tractor by their brother. Bhajan Singh inflicted his stick blow on Rattan Singh on the left side of his head. Upon hearing the alarm raised by the injured, Pritam Singh and Mahima Singh came to the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled from the scene. The injured were taken to the A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura on Tractor by their brother. On the statement of injured Dharam Singh, FIR No. 25 dated 28.3.1994 Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against them. 4. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. Having found a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused. 5. The prosecution examined complainant PW1- Dr. Tarsem Khurana, who had conducted the medico legal examination on Dharam Singh. The said witness proved the MLR Ex. PA and five injuries on his person. Injury No.5 was declared as grievous. Injury No.1 was reported to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon, whereas the remaining injuries were reported to have been caused with a blunt weapon. Complainant Dharam Singh appeared as PW2. He deposed on the line of the version contained the FIR. PW3- Rattan Singh, also toed the line of the complainant. Dr. O.P. Goel, examined as PW6 proved police request Ex.PW6/A and his opinion thereon as Ex.PW6/B regarding the fitness of the complainant-Dharam Singh to make a statement. The said witness had medico-legally examined Rattan Singh and found four injuries on his person. PW7- Dr. Bhardwaj is the member of the Board of the Doctors, which conducted medico-legal examination on the person of said Rattan. Singh. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they stated that they had falsely been implicated and claimed trial. 6. The learned trial Court had, as noticed above, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners under Sections 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal filed by them, as noticed above, was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 24.2.2006. 7. 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. The appeal filed by them, as noticed above, was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide judgment dated 24.2.2006. 7. 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, a cross-case 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 Dharam and party, were in the self defence and there was neither any intention nor any premeditation of minds by the petitioners. Still further, it is 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. 8. 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. 9. 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-Dharam Singh and Rattan 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, injury No.5 on the person of Dharam Singh, which was declared to be grievous clearly establishes the guilt on the part of the accused-petitioners. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not require any interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Tarsem Khurana, injury No.5 on the person of Dharam Singh, which was declared to be grievous clearly establishes the guilt on the part of the accused-petitioners. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below do not require any interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. 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. 11. Admittedly, in this case, injured-Dharam Singh, complainant and Rattan Singh 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.5 on the person of Dharam Singh, had been declared as grievous in nature. PW-3 Dr. Tarsem Khurana, who had medico legally examined Dharam Singh injured had categorically deposed to that effect. 12. 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 and partly modified by the learned appellate Court, the conviction of the accused-petitioners, do not require any interference by this Court. 13. 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-Bhajan Singh and others, had filed cross-cases against each other. Complainant-Dharam Singh and others have also challenged their conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below for various offences in the cross cases, registered at the instance of the present accused-petitioners, by way of CRR-498- 2006. 14. Custody certificates produced by the learned State Counsel show that petitioner-accused Jasbir Singh has undergone 22 days and Gurdas Singh accused has undergone 21 days of their total substantive sentence of 1-1/2 years, whereas the remaining accused-Bhajan Singh and Harbans Singh, have undergone 21 days each out of their total substantive sentence of 6 months. 15. 14. Custody certificates produced by the learned State Counsel show that petitioner-accused Jasbir Singh has undergone 22 days and Gurdas Singh accused has undergone 21 days of their total substantive sentence of 1-1/2 years, whereas the remaining accused-Bhajan Singh and Harbans Singh, have undergone 21 days each out of their total substantive sentence of 6 months. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Disposed of in the above terms.