IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 30, 2010 Nihal Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rajeev Kwatra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.9.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby judgment/order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the trial Court was upheld and the following sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code was affirmed: Name U/s R.I. Fine In default Nihal Singh 325 IPC 2 years Rs.200/- 15 years 323 IPC 6 months Rs.100/- 7 days 323/34 IPC 6 months Rs.100/- 7 days 323 IPC 6 months Rs.100/- 7 days 2. The brief facts of the present case, as noticed by the appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are that: Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -2- “Balbir Singh complainant, PW2, who was resident of Panjawa Model Village, was doing the work of agriculturist. On 7.1.97 his elder brother Avtar Singh and son Gurdev Singh PW3 were irrigating their field with the help of water from the canal minor. Next to them there was the turn of Satnam Singh accused to irrigate his land from the said R.D. of the canal minor and his turn was to start from 8.16 p.m. He himself was present at the R.D. whereas his brother Avtar Singh and his son Gurdev Singh were present at a distance of about 1-1/4 killa. Satnam Singh accused, who was having a spade and a dang with him, the husband of his sister Nihal Singh accused armed with a dang and Lal Chand accused armed with a spade came to that place in a jeep. It was still 8.05 p.m. when Satnam Singh diverted the flow of water and he inquired from him as to why he had done so before time. Nihal Singh replied that they were to divert the flow of water and he could do anything he liked. Then all the accused started quarrelling with him upon which Avtar Singh and Gurdev Singh also came there. In order to reconnect the water, the complainant had just entered the water course when Nihal Singh gave a blow with his dang on his shoulder. Thereafter, he came out of the water course when Satnam Singh gave three blows with his dang on the wrist of his left arm. Thereafter, Nihal Singh gave two blows with his dang on his right leg and right thigh, as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, Satnam, Singh gave two blows on his left leg and left ankle. When his son Gurdev Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -3- Singh came ahead to save him, Satnam Singh gave a blow with his dang on his nose. Lal Chand exhorted his co-accused not to spare them and thereafter Nihal Singh gave two blows with his dang on his right leg. They raised an alarm upon which all the accused escaped from that place in that jeep with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh went to the farm house of Surat Singh, situated at a distance of 5-6 killas, and disclosed all the facts to him. Surat Singh brought his tractor trolley in which he removed the complainant and Gurdev Singh injured to Civil Hospital, Abohar where they were medically examined by Dr.Pirthi Raj, PW1, and were admitted at that place. In that medical examination, ten injuries were found on the person of the complainant and one injury was found on the person of Gurdev Singh, which were detailed in the M.L.Reports Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. On the receipt of the copies of the M.R.Reports Joginder Singh, ASI, PW5 went to Civil Hospital, Abohar and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the complainant to make his statement, recorded his statement Ex.P4. After making his endorsement Ex.PW5/B on that statement he sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which report was recorded in the DDR at serial No.44. The injuries on the person of the complainant were subjected to radiological examination which was conducted by Dr.S.K.Juneja, PW4. In that examination fracture of both the bones in the lower part of right leg was detected. After the receipt of X-ray report Ex.P6 and the skiagrams Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -4- Ex.P6/A to Ex.P6/D Dr.Pirthi Raj, PW1, declared injury No.1, on the person of the complainant grievous vide his report Ex.P3. On the receipt of that report, FIR Ex.PW5/C was recorded against the accused u/ss 323,325/34 IPC, on the basis of the statement of the complainant which was incorporated in the D.D.R. on 8.1.97 itself. The investigation was conducted by Joginder Singh ASI, who went to the spot and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW5/D with correct marginal notes. On 10.1.97 Nihal Singh and Satnam Singh accused were arrested, who produced their dangs before the ASI and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, respectively. Nihal Singh produced jeep No.HYQ 1188 before the ASI and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/G. In the course of investigation, Lal Chand was also arrested and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before J.M.I.C.,Abohar, the trial of the accused for the aforesaid offences.” 3. Accused-petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Dr.Pirthi Raj as PW1; complainant Baldev Singh as PW2; Gurdev Singh, injured as PW3; Dr.SK Juneja as PW4 and ASI Joginder Singh as PW5. 5. Dr.Pirthi Raj, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Abohar found the following injuries on the person of Balbir Singh, complainant and his Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -5- son Gurdev Singh: 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1cm bone deep on front of right leg 5 cm about the ankle joint. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray. 2. Lacerated wound .5 cm x 0.1 cm skin deep present on antero lateral aspect of right leg 3 cm above the ankle. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm muscle deep present on lateral side of right leg 7 cm above the injury no.2. Fresh bleeding was present. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm bone deep present on front left leg 15 cm above the ankle. Fresh bleeding was present, tenderness was present. X- ray advised. 5. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on antiro medial side of left thigh on middle part. 6. Reddish contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on intero middle side of right thigh on middle part. 7. Reddish swelling 10 cm x 8cm over dorsum of left hand, tenderness was present. Advised x-ray. 8. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on back of right side of chest on middle part, tenderness was present. Advised x- ray. 9. An abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of left arm middle part. 10. An abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm on medial side of left fore arm lower part. Injuries on the person of Gurdev Singh, son of the complainant 1. An abrasion 0.3 x 0.1 cm on right side of nose lower part clotted blood was present in right nostril. 6. The accused-petitioner Nihal Singh was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which he pleaded his innocence and stated that he did not cause any injury to the complainant or Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -6- the injured Gurdev Singh. No evidence was led in defence. 7. The present revision was admitted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 22.10.2002. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is an unexplained delay of 23 hours in lodging the FIR. As per the case of prosecution, the elder brother of injured Kartar Singh was not injured, therefore, he had sufficient opportunity to report the matter to the police. The delay in question has been used by the prosecution to fabricate the evidence against the accused/appellant. 9. It has further been argued that there was no motive with the accused/appellant to cause injuries to the complainant and his son as it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the co-accused Satnam, did not own any land and it was only Lal Chand who was the owner of the land. Accordingly, the learned counsel has argued that there was no occasion for Satnam, co-accused, to divert the flow of water, as alleged by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the petitioner hails from another village so he had no occasion to go to the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the prosecution. 10. Learned counsel has further argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on various aspects of the case such as place of occurrence; on the issue whether they straightway went to the hospital from the place of occurrence or they went to their village first. It has also come in the statements of both the injured witnesses Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3 that blood had fallen on the spot. However, neither the blood stained earth was recovered from the spot nor Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -7- blood stained clothes were taken into possession. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of Dr. Pirthi Raj, PW1, who stated in his cross-examination that possibility of the injuries on the person of the injured as a result of fall or strike against a hard surface cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. 11. Learned counsel has further argued that the material witness, namely, Avtar Singh, elder brother of the complainant, allegedly present at the spot, has not been examined. 12. On the other land, learned State counsel has argued that there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place on 7.1.1997 at about 8.10 P.M. Both the injured witnesses Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3, were moved to the hospital and admitted in the hospital at about 11.00 P.M. On receipt of ruqa regarding admission of the injured, ASI Joginder Singh, PW6, recorded the statement of the complainant, Exhibit P4 on 8.1.1997 at 7.00 A.M. Initially only DDR was recorded. Later on when injury no. 1 was declared grievous thereafter, FIR was registered on 9.1.1997. 13. Learned counsel has further argued that case of the prosecution is established on all material points. The minor discrepancies in the statements of Balbir Singh, PW3 and Gurdev Singh, PW4 are bound to occur because the prosecution witnesses deposed after a lapse of more than four years. 14. As regards non-lifting of the blood-stained earth and clothes, it is argued that the place of occurrence was near the water channel and the FIR was registered after two days, therefore, recovery of both the articles from such a place was not possible. Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -8- 15. Learned State counsel has further submitted that both the injured witnesses, namely, Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3, have fully supported the case of prosecution and no further corroboration is required to the effect that Satnam Singh, accused, was not the owner of the land, however, the ownership of the co-accused Lal Chand is duly proved. 16. It has further been submitted that there were ten injuries on the person of Balbir Singh, PW2 and one injury on the person of Gurdev Singh, PW3. Injury No.1 was found to be grievous, which was attributed to the present petitioner on the person of Balbir Singh, PW2. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 18. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 7.1.1997 at about 8.00 P.M. The injured witnesses i.e. Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3 were removed to the hospital. On 8.1.1997 ASI Joginder Singh, received a wireless message regarding admission of the injured Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3 from the Civil Hospital and on its receipt he went to the hospital and recorded the statement, Exhibit P4, of the complainant Balbir Singh, PW2, and at that time the commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC only was found. It was after the receipt of X-ray report, present FIR, Exhibit PW5/C was registered on 9.1.1997 under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. From the above narration, it is clear that there is no delay in lodging the FIR, however, if any delay has occurred, the same has taken place on account of the anxiety to get the injured first admitted in the hospital. 19. As regards non-examination of all the witnesses, I feel that only those witnesses are required to be examined whose testimonies are found to Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -9- be necessary to unfold the case of the prosecution. It is not the quantity of the evidence rather it is the quality of the evidence, which needs to be examined. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention that all the witnesses were not examined. 20. As per the medico legal report, Exhibit P1, conducted by Dr. Pirthi Raj, PW1, ten injuries were noticed on the person of Balbir Singh, PW2. After the X-ray report, injury No.1 was declared grievous. This injury is attributed to the present petitioner. In the same manner, one injury was noticed on the person of Gurdev Singh, PW3. There is clear and cogent evidence of the injured witnesses regarding the entire incident, therefore, no corroboration of any sort is necessary. 21. As regards non-collecting of the blood stained earth from the spot, it is to be noticed that the place of occurrence was near the water- course. The FIR was registered after two days and thereafter the inspection of place of occurrence was carried out. In view of location of the occurrence, I feel that non-lifting of blood stained earth is not fatal in the present case. As regards non-production of blood stained clothes, the same cannot create any doubt keeping in view the statements of injured witnesses. 22. The case of the prosecution is fully established on the basis of the statements of the injured witnesses Balbir Singh, PW2 and Gurdev Singh, PW3. When there is direct and cogent evidence of the injured witnesses, no further corroboration is required. The issue of motive also pales into insignificance. The total number of injuries caused by the accused/appellant is sufficient indicator that the accused/appellant had a motive to cause injuries to the complainant. Though, it has come on record that the land is owned by Lal Chand only but this is not a mitigating factor Criminal Revision No.1955 of 2002 -10- in view of the number of injuries inflicted to the injured at the hands of the accused. 23. In view of above discussions, the present revision petition is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court is maintained. The appellant is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. 30.7.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No