Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. DECIDED ON : 19.5.2008. Major Singh and others Appellants. VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present:- Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate, and Mr. C.S.Rana, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Om Parkash , Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. JORA SINGH,J. Major Singh, Inderjit Singh and Kashmir Singh alias Lakhbir Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.1998 in Sessions Case No. 51 of 7.11.1994, bearing First Information Report No. 66 dated 17.7.1994, Police Station Majitha, under Sections 307, 326, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offence punishable under sections 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as under:- Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 2 1.Major Singh 324 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 324/34 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.150/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2.Inderjit Singh 324 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 324/34 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.150/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 3. Kashmir Singh 324 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. 324/34 I.P.C. To undergo R.I.,for two and half years and to pay fine Rs.150/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 3 All the sentences of imprisonment awarded were,however, ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.7.1994, ASI Parshotam Singh along with police party was present at bus stand Jagdev Kalan, where Ajit Singh complainant had met the police party and got recorded his statement to the effect that his land is adjoining the land of Major Singh. Few days earlier, there was a dispute and that dispute was settled with the intervention of respectable of the village and that revenue Patwari has also demarcated the boundary and the boundary wall was to be constructed at its actual place. On 9.7.1994 at 7 P.M. Hardev Singh his brother was going to irrigate his field. He along with his brother Balkar Singh was following him. When Hardev Singh reached the tubewell, then Major Singh accused armed with kirpan, Inderjit Singh accused armed with Gandasi and Kashmir Singh accused armed with gandasi were found present there. Accused raised lalkara to teach a lesson to Hardev Singh qua dispute of boundary wall. Inderjit Singh gave lalkara to catch hold of Hardev Singh and gave blow with gandasi blow, which hit on right leg of Hardev Singh. Kashmir Singh gave gandasi, which hit on the left leg of Hardev Singh. He gave another blow which hit left arm near elbow. Major Singh accused gave a kirpan blow, which hit on the upper side of the left Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 4 ear in front of forehead of Hardev Singh, who fell down on the ground. Lalkara was raised, then accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Amritsar. An effort was made to effect compromise. After that an endorsement was made, on the basis of which, formal First Information Report was recorded. After completion of investigation, accused were challaned. Vide order dated 25.10.1994 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar, this case was committed to the Ld. Court of Session, for trial. Accused were charged under Sections 307/324/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PW-1 Doctor Raman Gupta, who had declared Hardev Singh injured fit to make statement. He had also proved operation notes Ex.PW1/4. On 11.7.1994 and 13.7.1994, injured was not fit to make statement. Ultimately, on 17.7.1994, injured was declared fit to make statement. PW-2 Ajit Singh is the complainant and stated that in his presence, accused had caused injuries to Hardev Singh. PW3-Hardev Singh is the injured eye witness. He had supported the prosecution story as disclosed earlier to the Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 5 Investigating Officer. PW4- Parshotam Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW-5 Avtar Singh stated that in his presence, Inderjit Singh suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered weapons. Kashmir Singh also suffered disclosure statement and got recovered gandasi. Weapons were taken into police possession vide separate memo. PW-6 Rishi Ram, Draftsman has proved the scaled site plan. PW- 7Joginder Singh stated that Investigating Officer had lifted blood stained earth from two places in his presence which was made into sealed parcel and it was taken into police possession vide recovery memo attested by the witnesses. PW-8 Dr. Sant Parkash had medico legally examined Hardev Singh on 10.7.1994 and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. 4 x 1 cm incised wound on front of right leg in lower half. Placed vertically. 2. 7 x 2 cm curved incised wound on front of left leg in its middle. 3. 3 x 1 cm curved incised wound on front of left leg in its middle. 4. 9 x 3 cm incised wound on scalp, 5 cm above and to the front left ear placed obliquely underlying bone is partially cut. 5. 3 x 1 cm incised wound on dorsum of middle Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 6 phalanx of left middle finger. PW-9 Amarjit Singh HC tendered his affidavit Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 Gurdial Singh Constable also tendered his affidavit Ex.PW10/A into evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating evidence appearing against the appellants-accused was put to them. They denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of appellants-accused was that they are innocent. They were falsely implicated in this case.Defence version of the accused Major Singh was that on 9.7.1994 at about 7 P.M., he was present in his fields and Ajit Singh armed with a dang, Hardev Singh and Balkar Singh armed with kirpans had caused injuries to Hardev Singh in his defence. In defence, accused had examined DW-1 Dr. Sant parkash, who had medico legally examined Major Singh on 9.7.1994 at 11 P.M. and found seven injuries on his person. Defence counsel for the appellants-accused argued that occurrence had taken place on 17.7.1994. At that time, accused was 32 years old, second accused was 36 years old and third accused was 30 years old. Appellants-accused are the first offenders Judgment of the Lower Court is not challenged on the point of conviction. The learned counsel, thus, requested to take a lenient view to release the accused Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 7 on probation. Mr. Om Parkash, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab argued that no doubt occurrence had taken place in October, 1994 but the offence is serious. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on 17.7.1994. At that time, one accused was 30 years old, second was 32 years old and third one was 36 years old. Appellants-accused had also received injuries, namely Major Singh, one of the injury was declared as grievous. So, in view of all discussed above, judgment of the lower Court on the point of conviction is upheld. As discussed earlier, appellants-accused were the first offenders. Injuries noted on the person of Hardev Singh were not on the vital part except injury No.4, which was on the fore-head, but trial court opined that no offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Injury was considered to be simple in nature. One chance should be given to reform, the appellants and the victims were the neighbours from the same village. Ends of justice would be met, if appellants-accused are ordered to be released on probation, instead of directing them to undergo the imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appellants-accused are ordered to be released on probation in the sum of Rs.10,000/-with one Criminal Appeal No.1022-SB of 1998. 8 surety to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year with a direction to the appellants-accused to appear in Court to receive sentence when called upon in case of breach of condition of the probation bonds. Appellants- accused are directed to appear to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar to furnish bail bonds within one month from today. With the modification on the point of sentence, impugned judgment is upheld. Appeal without merit is dismissed. If probation bonds not furnished before the chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, then appeal would stand dismissed. 19.5.2008. ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE