Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 Date of Decision 03.12.2010 Bahadur Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent (ii) Criminal Revision No.646 of 2005 Baldip Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005. Mr.C.S.Jatana, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.646 of 2005. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This judgment shall dispose of two connected revision petition Nos.618 and 646 of 2005, filed by Bahadur Singh and another and the other filed by Baldip Singh petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') respectively against the judgment dated 09.03.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, dismissing their appeals against the judgment dated 20.12.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting and sentencing them as under:- Name of Accused U/Section Sentence Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 2 Baldip Singh 326 IPC R.I. for a period of two Bahadur Singh & 326/34 IPC years and a fine of Rs.500/- each. Baldip Singh 324 IPC R.I. for a period of one Bahadur Singh & 324/34 IPC year and a fine of Piara Singh Rs.200/- each. Bahadur Singh & 323 IPC Piara Singh R.I. For a period of six months and a fine of Baldip Singh 323/34 IPC Rs.100/- each Since both the revision petitions have arisen out of the common judgment, therefore, these are decided together. On 18.02.1998, Sukhwinder Singh, son of complainant Nasib Kaur (herein referred as 'the complainant') was returning to the village after attending the marriage party of his friend Sukhwinder Singh son of Kehar Singh. At about 6:00 p.m. when he reached near the shop of Darshan Singh, Bahadur Singh and Piara Singh armed with sticks and Baldip Singh armed with kirpan way laid him and abused him. In the meantime, on coming to know about the incident, complainant Nasib Kaur reached the place of occurrence, questioned the accused as to why they were abusing her son. At this, the accused remarked that they had voted for Sukhdev Singh of Akali Dal Mann Group and did not act upon their request in voting. Then the accused Baldip Singh exhorted that they would be taught a lesson upon which Bahadur Singh inflicted three stick blows, hitting Sukhjinder Singh on his back. Accused Piara Singh inflicted one stick blow on his left thigh and two stick blows to the complainant Nasib Kaur. Nasib Kaur raised hue and cry which attracted Jasbir Singh and Charan Pal Singh, who tried to intervene but the accused Piara Singh again inflicted a stick blow, hitting on Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 3 the right thigh of Sukhjinder Singh. When the complainant intervened then Baldip Singh inflicted one kirpan blow on her right hand and another on her left hand, hitting the left thumb. Thereafter, the accused left the place. The injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Barnala. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused were the supporters of Akali Dal, Barnala, whereas the complainant party were the supporters of Akali Dal Mann Group. The family of the complainant had not voted for Akali Dal, therefore, the accused caused them injuries. On the aforesaid statement of complainant on the next day i.e. 19.02.1998 at about 9:15 a.m., FIR Ex.PW3/C was registered and the case was investigated. The injured were medico legally examined. On x-ray examination, two injuries on the person of complainant were found to be grievous in nature. On submission of the charge-sheet, the accused were charged under Sections 326, 323, 324 read with Section 34 & 506 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.S.K.Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala (PW1), Dr.S.S.Toor, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala (PW2), complainant Nasib Kaur (PW3), Sukhjinder Singh, an injured eye witness (PW4), Head Constable Gulshan Kumar (PW5), Sub Inspector Bhag Singh, Investigating Officer (PW6) and placed on record some documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Inspector Daya Singh (DW1) in order to establish that a case was registered against Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 4 the accused Sukhdev Singh, Baldev Singh, Paramjit Singh, Charan Singh and Jit Singh, residents of village Mehal Khurd under Sections 148, 364, 325 read with Section 149 IPC. He also proved the copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in this regard. The trial resulted into conviction. Their appeals were also dismissed. While opening the arguments, Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate, has stated that since the accused Piara Singh has died, therefore, the appeal qua him stands abated. Learned State counsel has also not disputed this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to strengthen their pleas, have urged that there is a serious delay in lodging the FIR which has resulted into exaggeration of the prosecution version; the medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular account; the place of occurrence is doubtful and the imputation of little finger also finds doubtful as the same was removed to exaggerate the offence; no weapon of offence was recovered and the motive part is missing. To the contrary, learned State counsel has taken me through the entire evidence and urged that the appellate Court has elaborately met with all the arguments raised by the petitioners. No further point is being raised. Having pondered over the contentions, it may be observed that the delay of sixteen hours in recording the FIR in this case has resulted into addition of the accused. However, the version cannot be said to be false. The occurrence in this case took place on 18.02.1998 at 6:00 p.m whereas the statement of complainant Nasib Kaur was recorded at 9:50 a.m, on 19.02.1998 on the basis of which FIR was recorded. Three persons were involved in causing five simple injuries on the person of Sukhjinder Singh Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 5 whereas two/three grievous injuries on the person of complainant. According to prosecution, complainant suffered injuries at the hands of Baldip Singh whereas, injuries on the person of Sukhjinder Singh are attributed to Bahadur Singh and Piara Singh. While delving deep into the prosecution evidence, it transpires that medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular version qua the injuries attributed to Bahadur Singh. In the statement Ex.PW3/B and the FIR Ex.PW3/C, it is mentioned that Bahadur Singh had caused two stick blows on the back of Sukhjinder Singh whereas Sukhjinder Singh, who is alleged to have suffered injuries at the hands of Bahadur Singh, has made a contradictory statement while stating that Bahadur Singh caused him three stick blows on his legs whereas Piara Singh gave three stick blows on his left thigh. Even Nasib Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh are contradictory in their statements in the Court as she has stated that Piara Singh gave three stick blows on his right thigh whereas Sukhjinder Singh has stated that he suffered three stick blows on his left thigh. These substantial statements are contradictory to the medico legal report Ex.PA, as proved by Dr.S.K.Garg, who stated that there were only two reddish contusions each on both the thighs. Thus, in view of the contradictory medical evidence, which does not fit in with the ocular version, it would be difficult to accuse Bahadur Singh for the said injuries allegedly caused to Sukhjinder Singh. However, the prosecution case qua causing of injuries to Nasib Kaur at the hands of Baldip Singh cannot be brushed aside. Nasib Kaur (PW3) and Sukhjinder Singh (PW4) are quite consistent in their statements while testifying that Baldip Singh inflicted a kirpan blow on her right little finger and second blow on her left thumb. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length with regard to the injuries Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 6 caused by Baldip Singh on the person of complainant but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies which could help the case of the accused. It has been specifically stated by Sukhjinder Singh that Kirpan hit the hand of Nasib Kaur when she raised her hand to ward off the blow. He has also stated that the other fingers were also affected but the index finger was badly amputated. As such, the ocular version, given by the prosecution, being consistent with the injuries suffered by Nasib Kaur (PW3), with the medical evidence given by Dr.S.K.Garg (PW1) is sufficient to establish the case against Baldip Singh and Piara Singh. It is further noticed that out of these three injuries, she suffered two injuries on the right hand and one on the left hand. All the three injuries were found to be the result of sharp edged weapon and the x-ray report Ex.PG further reveals that middle phalanx completely chopped off from its base. The MLR further reveals that injury No.2 affected the forth finger, as such, injury No.1 cannot be said to be self suffered. No plausible defence has been led by the accused in order to shatter the prosecution version. The evidence of Inspector Daya Singh (DW1) does not land the Court anywhere to doubt the occurrence. Even both the Courts below have arrived at findings of fact that the accused Baldip Singh caused Kirpan injuries at the hands of complainant, resultantly, her index finger was completely amputated and its side by finger was also affected. She also suffered injuries on the right thumb. No other argument has been advanced. For the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition qua Piara Singh (since deceased) being abated, is dismissed and the petition, preferred Criminal Revision No.618 of 2005 7 by Baldip Singh is dismissed on merits. However, the petition filed by Bahadur Singh is accepted; he is acquitted of the charges framed against him and he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. Fine, if any, deposited by him, be refunded. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 03.12.2010 mamta-II