Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 Date of Decision:February 20, 2009 Hardev Kaur and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.S.S.Joshi,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab *** SABINA, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 323, 326/34 IPC of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 20.5.2006. Vide order of even date passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 and 323/34 IPC respectively and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for offence under Section 326/34 IPC whereas petitioner No. 3 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 200/- for an offence under Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323/34IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {2} concurrently.Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 15.12.2008. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The facts of the case, as unfolded by the records, are that F.I.R. dated 20.9.2000 in this case was registered on the statement of complainant/injured Amir Singh son of Bakar Singh, Rai Sikh, resident of Bahader Ke, who made a statement on 20.9.2000 that he is an agriculturist and on 11.9.2000 at about 12.00 P.M. his daughter in law Ishra Bai went for storing cow dung on rorhi, situated in Garhian. Then Hardev Kaur who had earlier tried to restrain her from storing cow dung raised a lalkara by saying that Ishra Bai should not go scot free and she should be taught a lesson for placing cow dung there. In the meanwhile Paramjit Kaur d/o Hardev Kaur w/o Jagir Singh armed with Gandhala and Shinda s/o Jangir Singh armed with dang came there. When he came out from his house then Paramjit Kaur attacked with her Gandhala on the left portion of his nose and Shinda attacked with his Dang on his left shoulder and the complainant fell down on the ground. Thereafter Hardev Kaur gave him kicks and also threatened to kill him. In the meanwhile Amro w/o Bhajan Singh and his son Harbans Singh reached at the site of occurrence and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The motive Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {3} behind the quarrel is that there is a dispute regarding the Shamlat land for using it for the purpose of storing garbage and Hardev Kaur has illegally encroached the Shamlat Land and also constructed a cattle shed. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Sidhwan. Bet by Harbans Singh and the efforts are also made for the compromise. After recording the statement the alleged FIR under Sections 325/326/34 I.P.C. has been registered and investigation was taken into hand by ASI Karnail Singh. Medical record was also collected from the hospital and the opinion of doctor was also taken before recording the statement of complainant. When the efforts were not matured into compromise between the parties, then the alleged statement of the complainant was recorded. The accused were arrested in this case and the statement of witnesses were recorded and after the completion of entire investigation as envisaged under the Cr.P.C., the present challan has been presented against the accused and thereafter supplementary challan by placing accused Surinder Singh @ Chhinda in column No. 2 was also presented.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Surinder Singh -appellant had been declared innocent by the police during investigation. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the entire witnesses had duly proved the prosecution case. Occurrence in the present case had taken placed on 11.9. 2000 Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {4} at about 12-00 noon. PW-1, Dr. Manmohan Singh has proved the injuries suffered by the injured-Amir Singh. As per him, during examination he found that the injured had suffered two injuries i.e. one on his left cheek/nose and the other on the left shoulder joint. Injury on the cheek/nose was opined to have been caused with a sharp weapon and was declared grievous in nature whereas injury No. 2 was opined to have been caused with a blunt weapon and was declared to be simple in nature. Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. PW-3 Harbans Singh has duly corroborated the statement of PW-2 with regard to the manner of occurrence. DW-1-Amar Kaur has deposed that no occurrence, as alleged, has taken place. Injuries on the person of Amir Singh were self suffered and he has been falsely involved the petitioners in this case. DW-2, Ujjagar Singh also deposed that the petitioners had not inflicted any injury on the person of injured Amir Singh. So far as Hardev Kaur-petitioner is concerned, she is alleged to have raised a lalkara and was empty handed and has allegedly given kick blows on the person of the injured. However, from the medical evidence, it is evident that the injured had suffered only two injuries i.e. one on the cheek/nose and the other on left shoulder joint. He did not complaint of pain at any other place due to kick blows. The possibility that Hardev Kaur has thus, been falsely involved in this case, cannot be ruled out and hence, she is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against her by giving her the benefit of doubt. However, so far as petitioners No. 2 and 3-Surinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur are concerned, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. As per the eye witness account, Paramjit Kaur- Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {5} petitioner No. 3 had given a gandhala blow on the nose of the injured-Amir Singh whereas petitioner No. 1 -Surinder Singh had given a dang blow on the left shoulder of the injured. The said eye witness account is duly corroborated the medical evidence. As per Doctor Manmohan Singh-PW-1, injury No. 1 can be caused by gandhala as it was having a curve shape. From the medical evidence there is nothing to suggest that injuries on the person of Amir Singh could be self suffered. Hence, the witnesses examined by the petitioners in defence fail to rebut the testimony of the eye witnesses with regard to the manner of occurrence. In these circumstances, the court below had rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners Surinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur for an offence under Sections 326, 323/341 IPC. However, the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the courts below under Section 326 IPC is liable to be reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Petitioner No. 1- Hardev Kaur is acquitted of the charge framed against her and judgments of the courts below whereby she was convicted and sentenced under Section 323, 326/34 IPC are set aside. So far as Petitioners Surinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur are concerned, their conviction under Section 323, 326 IPC is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentence qua fine under Section 326 IPC and sentence qua Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {6} imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC are maintained. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 20, 2009 PARAMJIT