Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 Date of Decision: 01.05.2009 1. Amarjeet Singh; 2. Karnail Singh both sons of Chanan Singh; 3. Surjit Singh; 4. Mohinder Singh both sons of Shingara Singh; All residents of Ballochak, District Kapurthala. ... Revision-petitioners Versus State of Punjab. ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Sangeeta Dubey, Advocate, (Amicus-curiae), for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgement dated 21.12.01, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 2 Kapurthala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 05.02.99, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala, vide which, it convicted, and sentenced the accused (now revision-petitioners) to various terms of imprisonment. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 03.12.95, at about 9.00 PM, when Mangal Singh, came out of his house to answer the call of nature, he noticed Ajit Singh, Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh, Surjit Singh, and Jaswinder Singh, present near the culvert of the village pond who on seeing him (Mangal Singh) started abusing the Panchayat and the villagers. Mangal Singh objected to the said behaviour of the accused. Ajit Singh, told his co-accused to teach him a lesson for stopping them from putting earth in the village pond. Jaswinder Singh, accused, picked up a brick bat and threw it towards Mangal Singh, causing an injury on his nose. Karnail Singh, accused, caused an injury on his (Mangal Singh's) right knee joint, with a brick bat. Mohinder Singh, accused, also gave an injury on his shoulder, with a brick bat. Surjit Singh, accused, also gave an injury with a brick bat, on his (Mangal Singh's) right knee joint. In the meanwhile, Ajit Singh, accused, brought a dang, and caused two injuries on the person of Mangal Singh, on his right foot, right toe, and the adjoining finger, as a result whereof, he fell down, and raised an alarm. Parminderjit Singh, Anokh Singh, and Mangal Singh son of Kartar Singh, came to the spot whereupon, the accused ran away therefrom. Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 3 3. The motive for the commission of the offence was that the accused were forcibly taking possession of the village pond, by putting earth therein, which was objected to by Mangal Singh. They were stopped by the Panchayat, from doing so. 4. Mangal Singh, was removed to Civil Hospital, Begowal, where he reached at 10.50 PM, and was medically examined. On receiving the intimation, Assistant Sub Inspector Pritpal Singh, Investigating Officer, reached Civil Hospital, Begowal, and recorded statement PE of complainant Mangal Singh, regarding the occurrence, as narrated above. He made an endorsement PE/1 on the same that as per the MLR, injuries No. 1, 6, and 7 had been kept under observation and the opinion after the x rays was awaited and the remaining injuries were simple and stated to have been caused with blunt weapon and therefore further action be taken after the receipt of x rays report. He also recorded DDR No. 17, dated 04.12.95, exhibit PE/2 to the same effect. On 16.12.95, on receipt of x rays report, regarding the injuries, on the person of Mangal Singh, complainant, whereby injury No. 6, was declared grievous, vide endorsement PE/3, the case was ordered to be registered under Sections 148, 325, and 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian penal Code, on the basis whereof, formal first information report number 53, PE/4, was recorded, at Police Station Begowal (Bholath). 5. The Investigating Officer, reached the place of occurrence, and prepared the site plan PC/1. The statements of the witnesses were Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 4 recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 6. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 148, 323, and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read- over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Barinder Gill (PW1), who conducted x ray, with regard to the injuries, caused on the person of Mangal Singh, and proved report PA, as also skiagrams PA/1 and PA/2, Dr. Tarsem Singh, Surgical Specialist (PW2), Mangal Singh, complainant (PW3), Bachan Singh, an eyewitness (PW4), and Assistant Sub Inspector Pritpal Singh (PW5). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 8. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Amarjit Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that Mangal Singh, Hazara Singh, Malook Singh, Bachan Singh, Anokh Singh, and Nirmal Singh, caused injuries, on his person, and on the person of Jaswant Singh. It was further stated by him, that with a Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 5 view to save them, the members of the complainant party, in connivance with others, got a false case registered. 9. Karnail Singh, Jaswant Singh, Surjit Singh, and Mohinder Singh, accused, also took up the same plea, as was taken up by Amarjit Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also examined Dr. Barinder Gill (DW1), Dr. Harbhajan Singh (DW2), and Jasbir Kaur (DW3), in their defence. 10. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced, the accused, as stated above. 11. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellants, which was dismissed, by the Appellate Court, vide judgement dated 21.12.2001. 12. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by the accused (now revision-petitioners). 13. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 14. It is settled principle of law, that, in its revisional jurisdiction, this Court, is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the trial Court, are perverse, illegal or erroneous, on account of mis-reading of evidence. The Courts below, while relying upon the cogent, and convincing evidence of Mangal Singh, PW3, injured, duly corroborated by the statement of Bachan Singh, PW4, an Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 6 eye-witness, as also the medical evidence in the shape of the statements of Dr. Barinder Gill, PW1, and Dr. Tarsem Singh, Surgical Specialist, PW2, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the prosecution had proved its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only this, the Courts below, were also right in coming to the conclusion, that the statement of Jasbir Kaur, DW3, did not inspire confidence, because the said version was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses, during the course of their cross-examination, and, thus, was an after-thought. The Courts below, were also right, in holding that Jasbir Kaur, DW3, being the wife of Surjit Singh, one of the accused (now revision-petitioner), could make the statement of any sort to help them (accused). The Courts below, were also right, in coming to the conclusion, that there was only one injury i.e. abrasion, on the person of Amarjit Singh, which was declared simple in nature, and five injuries, on the person of Jaswant Singh, accused, out of which, four were simple in nature, and one was grievous, being on forearm. The Courts below were also right, in coming to the conclusion that these injuries, on the person of the accused, were either self- suffered or on account of fall. The Courts below, were, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the version set up by the accused, to the effect, that the members of the complainant party caused injuries, on their person, and with a view to save them, a false case was got registered, by them, was completely false. The judgements rendered by the Courts below, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2002 7 infirmity, and the same are liable to be upheld. 15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The judgements, of conviction and the orders of sentence, of the Courts below are upheld. If the revision-petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months. 17. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court. 18. The Registry is directed to keep track that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action. 01.05.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE