Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 Date of Decision: March 07, 2011 Jagsir @ Jagga and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.Kamal Chaudhary and Mr.Gaurav Singh, Advocates for Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.JS Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioners/accused Jagsir @ Jagga, Gurmit Singh @ Gogri and Jagmit Singh @ Deepra were convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa for the offences under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 1.2.2002 and were sentenced as under: Name Section Sentence Fine In default Jagmit Singh @ Deepra Jagsir @ Jagga Gurmit Singh @ Gogri 323 IPC RI for one year each `1,000/- each Simple imprisonment for three months each -do- 324 IPC RI for two years each `2,000/- each Simple imprisonment for four months each Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 2 Name Section Sentence Fine In default -do- 326 IPC RI for 30 months each `4,000/- each Simple imprisonment for six months each They preferred an appeal against the judgment which was decided by Sessions Judge, Sirsa who acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and while maintaining their conviction under Sections 323/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment from 30 months to one year under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The present revision has been preferred against that conviction and sentence. It was on the statement of Gurtej Singh-complainant PW2, Exhibit PB, made before Head Constable Om Parkash, PW1, that the FIR, Exhibit PB/2, was recorded against the accused under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He narrated therein that on 20.7.1993 at about 5.00/5.30 p.m., he was sitting near the Hanuman Mandir of his village Lakkarwali, when accused Gogri armed with a gandasa, accused Jagga armed with a danda and accused Deepra armed with a motor- cycle chain came to that place. Accused Deepra gave a lalkara that he be taught a lesson for quarrelling with his brother-in-law. Thereafter, Gogri gave a blow with his gandasa on his right ankle and Deepra gave a blow with the motor-cycle chain on his back, as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, Gogri gave a blow from the blunt side of the gandasa on his right ankle and Jagga gave a blow with his danda on the back of his right hand and the second blow with that danda was given on his elbow. Meanwhile, two persons came to that place who tried to save Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 3 him but Jagga gave two blows with his danda on his left ankle and Deepra gave a blow with the motor-cycle chain on his left shoulder. He raised an alarm which attracted Gurjant Singh to the spot who saved him from the accused and all these accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. He was removed to the hospital where he was medically examined by Dr.Rakesh Goyal, PW4, who found nine injuries on his person which were detailed in the Medico Legal Report, Exhibit PW4/A. Written information, Exhibit PW4/D, regarding the admission of the complainant- injured in the hospital was sent to police post Odhan. On the receipt of that information, Head Constable Om Parkash came to the hospital and made an application, Exhibit PA, for enquiring about the condition of the complainant-injured to make his statement. The doctor declared him unfit to make statement. On the next day, Head Constable went to the hospital and at that time, the complainant-injured was declared fit to make statement. It was only thereafter that his above said statement, Exhibit PB, was recorded. He went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan, Exhibit PC, with correct marginal notes. The injuries on the person of the complainant-injured were subjected to radiological examination. On the basis of the x-ray report, injuries No.1 and 2 on his person were declared as grievous by the doctor, vide his report, Exhibit PW4/C & PW4/E. The investigation was conducted by ASI Khajan Singh, PW3. On 28.7.1993, he arrested the accused. One stick was recovered from the possession of Jagga @ Jagsir Singh and the same was taken into possession, vide memo Exhibit PW3/A. From the possession of Gogri @ Gurmit Singh, one gandasa was recovered which was taken into possession vide memo, Exhibit PW3/B. After the completion of Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 4 investigation, the challan was put before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, who found sufficient grounds to presume that the accused committed offences under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove their guilt, the prosecution examined Head Constable Om Parkash, PW1, injured-complainant Gurtej Singh, PW2, ASI Khajan Singh, PW3 and Dr.Rakesh Goyal, PW4. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence and they examined Maghar Singh DW1 and Bakhtawar Singh DW2 in their defence evidence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that the conviction of the accused could not have been recorded on the solitary statement of the complainant as according to the prosecution itself, this occurrence was witnessed by Gurjant Singh and others also. There is delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR which has not been explained. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had any motive to cause injuries to the complainant. As a result of the delay, the statement of the complainant is liable to be scrutinized more closely. His statement has been contradicted by the medical evidence as according to him, six injuries had been caused, Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 5 whereas during his medical examination, nine injuries were found. Even the sequence in which injuries were caused, was changed while making the statement in the Court. In these circumstances, the conviction should not have been recorded on the solitary statement of injured-witness. He further submitted that no skiagrams were produced at the time the doctor witness was examined in the Court and in the absence of those skiagrams, no conviction could have been recorded under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. In the last, he submitted that the accused have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for 2-1/2 months, 2 months and 11 months respectively, and their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone keeping in view the fact that they are standing the trial for the last so many years. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the State counsel that the complainant made trustworthy statement in the Court and the conviction of the accused has been rightly recorded on his statement, even in the absence of any corroboration. There is no contradiction in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence so produced by the prosecution as seat of two of the injuries was the same and the blow of the chain of the motor- cycle was bound to cause more than one injury. The delay occurred as the complainant-injured was unfit to make statement when the police approached him and the same was recorded when he was declared fit to make the same. In view of the direct evidence produced by the prosecution, the motive is not material. He also submitted that there is no ground for reducing the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon them. There is no rule of law that the conviction of the accused Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 6 cannot be recorded on the solitary statement of the injured-witness. The corroboration is only a rule of prudence. If the statement of solitary witness is found to be trustworthy and reliable, conviction of the accused can be based upon the same. There is no dispute about the fact that the prosecution neither alleged nor proved any motive on the part of the accused to cause injuries to the complainant, but motive is not material in each and every case. This loses its significance when the prosecution produced evidence in the form of direct evidence. It is only in the cases which are based upon circumstantial evidence that the motive becomes material. If the direct evidence produced by the prosecution is found to be trustworthy, this motive pales into insignificance. Admittedly, there is delay in lodging the FIR but that itself is not fatal to the prosecution in view of the explanation offered by it. It is in the statement of Om Parkash, Head Constable, PW1, that after receiving the information regarding the admission of the injured in the hospital, he went to that place on 20.7.1993 at 7.00/7.15 p.m. and made enquiry for recording the statement, but the Doctor declared him unfit to make the statement. On the next day, he again visited the hospital and after the Doctor declared him fit, he recorded the statement of the injured. In the circumstances of the present case, this is sufficient explanation offered and proved by the prosecution. This Court has minutely gone through the statement of the complainant-injured, PW2 and has come to the conclusion that the statement so made by him is trustworthy and reliable. No such illegality was committed by the trial Court while recording the conviction of the accused on his solitary statement. It cannot be said that his statement stands contradicted by the medical evidence. No doubt, it has been stated Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 7 by him that, in all, the accused caused six injuries to him, whereas during his medical examination, nine injuries were found. Injury No.2 was around injury No.1 and the last three injuries were contusions on that part of the person of the complainant where he stated to have received the injuries by means of the chain of the motor cycle. One blow with the chain of motor cycle was bound to cause more than one injury. There is no dispute about the fact that skiagrams were not produced on the record by the prosecution and the same were not on the file when the statement of Dr.Rakesh Goyal, PW4 was recorded, but this fact cannot be lost sight of that this Doctor himself had conducted the x-ray examination and proved the x-ray report as Exhibit PW4/C. He specifically stated that the fracture of tibia and fracture of fibula of right leg were seen in the part x-rayed. He was not at all cross-examined on that aspect of the case. It cannot be concluded that on account of non-proving of skiagrams on record, reliance is not to be placed on the opinion given by this witness regarding the nature of the injuries. There is no ground to come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court are perverse or illegal or are the result of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence. There is no denial of the fact that the accused are standing trial for the last more than ten years but the fact remains that for such a grave offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, they were awarded sentence of only one year. For such a serious offence which is punishable upto imprisonment for life, I do not find any ground to reduce that sentence while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. Crl.Revn.No.424 of 2005 8 Accused be taken in custody for undergoing the sentence imposed upon them. Records of the trial Court be returned forthwith. ( GURDEV SINGH ) MARCH 07, 2011 JUDGE SRM