Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.974 of 2010 Date of decision. 06.05.2010 1. Ajit Singh s/o Chakar Singh s/o Sohan Singh, r/o village Parjina, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 2. Surjit Singh s/o Chakar Singh s/o Sohan Singh, r/o village Parjina, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 3. Sajjan Singh s/o Gahra Singh s/o Bassu Singh, r/o village Malsihan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 4. Puran Singh s/o Chakar Singh s/o Sohan Singh, r/o village Kannian, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 5. Nishan Singh s/o Sadhu Singh s/o Himmat Singh, r/o village Rajoke Gatti, PS Sadar Ferozepur. 6. Chhinda s/o Chakar Singh s/o Sohan Singh, r/o village Kannian, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 7. Gohra Bai w/o Chakar Singh s/o Sohan Singh, r/o village Kannian, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 8. Jagdish Singh s/o Sajwara Singh s/o Sobha Singh, r/o Kholian Wala Pul, Malsihan Bajan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Amit Rana, Advocate with Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2010, rendered by the Additional Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --2-- Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the appeal, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.7.2008, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which it convicted Ajit Singh, Surjit Singh, Puran Singh, Chhinda Singh, Sajjan Singh, Jagdish Singh and Gohra Bai,accused (now revision-petitioners) for the offences,punishable under Sections 148, and 323, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Nishan Singh, accused was convicted for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 326 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo various terms of imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 14.05.2000, a wireless message was received from the In-charge, Police Post, Bus Stand, Jagraon to the effect, that one person namely Ram Lal son of Seechna Singh, Nanak Singh son of Aala Singh, Kako Bai wife of Jagdish Singh, and Surjit Singh son of Chakar Singh, residents of village Malsihan Basjan, Kholian Wala Pul were lying admitted in the Civil Hospital, on account of the injuries, sustained by them, in the scuffle/dispute. On receipt of information, Dalip Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, alongwith other Police officials, went Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --3-- to Civil Hospital, Jagraon, to record the statements of the injured. He moved an application before the doctor, seeking his opinion, as to whether, the injured were fit to make statements. After obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness, he recorded the statements of Ram Lal, Nanak Singh, Jogindro Bai @ Kako Bai and Surjit Singh. Ram Lal, injured, stated that on 13.5.2000 he alongwith his family members was sitting in his house. At about 3.00 PM when Nishan Singh son of Sadhu Singh, Ajit Singh s/o Chakar Singh, Surjit Singh son of Chakar Singh, Puran Singh son of Chakar Singh, Chhinda Singh son of Chakar Singh, Gohra Bai w/o Chakar Singh, Sajjan Singh son of Gahra Singh, and Jagdish Singh son of Sajwara Singh, came to the house of Surjit Singh by raising exhortations. He alongwith Nanak Singh and Jogindro Bai, came out of their house and they confined him(complainant) alongwith other persons. 2-A. Ajit Singh raised an exhortation that he(Ram Lal) be caught hold. It was further stated that, in furtherance of their common object, Nishan Singh gave a barcha blow, which hit the little finger of Ram Lal. Surjit Singh, gave a dang blow, which hit the left side of his forehead. Puran Singh gave a dang blow, which hit his head. Chhinda Singh gave a dang blow, which hit his left knee. Sajjan Singh gave Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --4-- a dang blow, which hit his left elbow. Jagdish Singh, gave a dang blow, which hit his backside, on the left side. Gohra Bai dragged him from his hair. It was further stated by Ram Lal, complainant, that on receipt of the injuries, he fell down. The assailants also caused injuries on the person of Jogindro Bai, his wife. The occurrence was witnessed by Balbir Singh son of Buta Singh, who was present at the spot. All the assailants, after causing injuries, fled from the spot, with their respective weapons. 3. It was further stated by him that the motive behind the occurrence, was that, he was having a dispute with Gohra Bai, in respect of the land of Aala Singh, Chakar Singh etc, and due to this grudge, they caused injuries, on his person, as also on the person of Jogindro Bai, his wife, and Nanak Singh. 3-A. Thereafter Nazar Singh son of Ishar Singh came there and removed the injured to the Civil Hospital. 4. On the basis of the statement, made by Ram Lal, complainant, an FIR was registered. The statements of the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation,the accused were challaned. Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --5-- 5. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 148, 326, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ram Lal, complainant-cum-injured, (PW-1), Jogindro Bai, injured-cum-eye witness, (PW-2), Dalip Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, Investigating Officer, (PW-3), Dr. R.S. Grewal, (PW-4), Amarjit Singh, Head Constable, (PW-5), and Avtar Singh, Head Constable, (PW-6). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. 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. However, no defence evidence, was led, by the accused. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --6-- 9. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred, by the appellants, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.3.2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana. 10. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision- petition was filed, by the revision-petitioners. 11. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case carefully. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that there was a delay of 51 hours ,in lodging the First Information Report, which resulted into concoction of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. He further submitted that Ajit Singh, Surjit Singh, Sajjan Singh, Puran Singh, Nishan Singh, Chhinda, Gohra Bai and Jagdish Singh did not participate in the commission of crime, but they were falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that there was only one injury with sharp edged weapon i.e. Barcha, on the person of Ram Lal, complainant, and all other injuries on the person of Ram Lal, Jogindro Bai, and Nanak Singh were either abrasions or bruises, caused by blunt weapons. He further submitted that the Courts below did not take into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter, as a result whereof, they fell into a grave Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --7-- error in recording conviction and awarding sentence to all the accused. 13. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, submitted that the Courts below on due scrutiny of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, were right in coming to the conclusion that the same was cogent, convincing , reliable and trust worthy and sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. He further submitted that the accused were rightly convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. 14. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition deserves to be partly accepted and partly dismissed, as would be discussed hereinafter. There was 51 hours delay, in lodging the First Information Report. The delay of 51 hours was not completely explained, by the prosecution witnesses. Even if, it is taken, that Ram Lal, Nanak Singh and Jogindro Bai, injured, after having received the injuries, were taken to the hospital and got admitted there, Balbir Singh, eye witness, who did not receive any injury, could certainly go to the Police Station to lodge the report, immediately. Since the delay of 51 hours in lodging the First Information Report had not been Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --8-- wholly explained, the possibility of false implication of some of the accused, could not be ruled out. 15. Nishan Singh, accused, was holding a Barcha. He gave a Barcha blow, on the little finger of Ram Lal, complainant, as a result whereof, it was amputated. Surjit Singh, gave a dang blow, which hit the left side of the forehead of Ram Lal, complainant. Puran Singh gave a dang blow, which hit the middle of the head of the complainant. These injuries were duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The participation of Nishan Singh, Surjit Singh and Puran Singh, accused, in the commission of crime, therefore, was rightly held to be established, by the Courts below, on the basis of the evidence, led by the prosecution. 16. Coming to the participation of the remaining accused (now revision-petitioners) namely Ajit Singh, Sajjan Singh, Chhinda, Gohra Bai and Jagdish Singh, in the commission of crime, it may be stated here, that the same was doubtful. Ajit Singh was only attributed an exhortation whereby Gohra Bai was attributed a role that she dragged Ram Lal, complainant, from his hair. One injury each has been attributed to Chhinda , Sajjan and Jagdish, with dang on non-vital parts of the body of the complainant. Since Surjit Singh and Puran Singh were having dangs, they could very Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --9-- well cause these injuries on the person of Ram Lal, complainant, Nanak Singh and Jogindro Bai. Ajit Singh, Surjit Singh, Puran Singh, and Chhinda are the sons of Chakar Singh, whereas Gohra Bai is the wife of Chakar Singh. It appears that all the members of the family of Chakar Singh were involved, in this case. There is a tendency in this part of the Country, to rope innocent with the guilty. This tendency, can be curbed by seeking independent corroboration. The role of Ajit Singh, accused, who was only attributed an exhortation, Gohra Bai who was only attributed pulling of hair of Ram Lal, Sajjan Singh , Chhinda and Jagdish Singh, in the alleged commission of crime, was highly doubtful. They are required to be given the benefit of doubt. 17. Since this Court has held that the role of Ajit Singh, Gohra Bai, Sajjan Singh , Chhinda and Jagdish Singh, in the alleged commission of crime, was doubtful, and they are entitled to acquittal, there was no unlawful assembly, as the number of the remaining accused, only remained three, so no offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code was committed. Similarly, Surjit Singh, Puran Singh and Nishan Singh could not be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the revision Crl. Revn. No.974 of 2010 --10-- petition is dismissed qua Surjit Singh, Puran Singh and Nishan Singh, in the manner and with the modification that the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 323 qua Surjit Singh and Puran Singh and for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323 qua Nishan Singh instead of with aid of Section 149 IPC and sentence awarded to them for the said offences are upheld. The conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, against Puran Singh, Surjit Singh and Nishan Singh and sentence awarded to them for the said offence, are set aside. 19. The criminal appeal filed by Ajit Singh, Sajjan Singh, Chhinda, Gohra Bai and Jagdish, is accepted in toto. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, qua them, are set aside. 20. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall comply with the judgment, in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 21. The Registry is directed to comply with the order immediately. 06.05.2010 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge