CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 Date of decision : 23.11.2010 Ajaib Singh and another ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND CRR No.453 of 2002 Ajaib Singh S/o Dhara Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant(s)/petitioner(s). Mr. J S Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This judgment of mine shall disposed of two cases, namely, CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 for having arisen out of the same incident. However, the facts are being derived from CRA No.1261-SB of 2001. 1 CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2001 and order of sentence dated 11.10.2001 (hereinafter as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur (hereinafter as the ‘trial Court’), has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:- Sr. No. Name of the accused Section under which convicted Substantive sentence awarded Fine imposed In default of payment of fine 1. Nirmal Singh 307 IPC R.I. for 5 years Rs.2,500/- R.I. for 4 months 323 IPC R.I. for 6 months -- -- 324/34 IPC R.I. for 1 year -- -- 2. Ajaib Singh 307/34 IPC R.I. for 3 years Rs.2,500/- R.I. for 4 months 323 IPC R.I. for 6 months -- -- 324 IPC R.I. for 1 ½ years -- -- All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the present case as set up by the prosecution, are that on 20.11.1992 at about 10.00 a.m., complainant-Nishan Singh, along with his son-Jarmal Singh and wife- Manjit Kaur, went to the fields for plucking cotton crop. Accused- Ajaib Singh, came there and proclaimed as to why complainant had pruned ridge (watt) of land to which the complainant gave him assurance that he will mend the same by putting earth. Thereafter, accused left for his house. At about 1.00 p.m. on the same day, complainant, along with his wife and son, was going to village on a cart. When they reached near the fields of one Budh Singh, then the accused, Nirmal Singh and Ajaib Singh, duly armed with ‘Tokies’ 2 CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 came there and started raising lalkaras that the complainant be caught hold of. Upon this, Jarmal Singh, son of the complainant, who was sitting in front portion of the cart, came down from the cart. Accused-Nirmal Singh gave a ‘Toki’ blow on the person of Jarmal Singh which hit him on his head and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Manjit Kaur came forward to save his son but accused- Ajaib Singh gave ‘Toki’ blow from sharp side on the right arm of the complainant and another blow from reverse side on the right-side thigh of Manjit Kaur. She also fell on the ground. Nirmal Singh gave ‘Toki’ blow on right wrist of Jarmal Singh from reverse side. On raising raula of ‘killed killed’, both the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons by proclaiming that the routine dispute over the common ridge of land had been finished. Both the injured were removed to the Civil Hospital, Kot Isse Khan, by the complainant but they were referred to Civil Hospital, Moga. On the basis of the statement suffered by the complainant, DDR No.22 dated 20.11.1992 was recorded. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira, on finding a prima facie case against the accused, committed the same to the Court of Sessions whereupon, the accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, namely, Dr. Yash Paul, who medico-legally examined injured-Jarmal Singh and Manjit Kaur, as PW1; Satnam Singh, Halqa Patwari, who prepared scaled 3 CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 site plan, Ex.PE, as PW2; Dr. Rajinder Singh, Medical Officer, who referred the injured Jarmal Singh to Civil Hospital, Moga, as PW3; Nishan Singh, complainant, as PW4; Jarmal Singh, injured, as PW5; Manjit Kaur, injured, as PW6; Dr. Hartirath Singh, SMO, who conducted X-ray of skull of Jarmal Singh and forearm of Manjit Kaur, as PW7; and ASI Jagir Singh, Investigating Officer, as PW8; and Dr. Jaidev Singh, Surgical Specialist, who treated Jarmal Singh from 20.11.1992 to 14.12.1992, as PW9. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded while putting them all the incriminating circumstances and material appearing against them in the prosecution case to which they denied and pleaded innocence. The main defence plea of all the three accused was that the injuries inflicted by them were in self- defence. In their defence, the accused also examined Dr. Gian Singh as DW1; and Dr. Mukesh Gupta as DW2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence and term as indicated at the outset of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal which was admitted by this Court, vide order dated 31.10.2001. The appellants were ordered to be released on bail vide orders dated 30.10.2001 and 27.11.2001. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the medical evidence of Dr. Yash Paul, PW1 and Dr.Jaidev Singh, PW9, the injury attributed to appellant-Nirmal Singh, does not come under the ambit of Section 307 IPC. He has further contended 4 CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 that Dr. Jaidev Singh, PW9, has stated in his cross-examination that he had gone through the X-ray and according to it, there was neither any fracture nor any bone cut. This witness has further stated that he never declared the injury on the person of Jarmal Singh as dangerous to life. 5. The learned counsel has further argued that the other appellant, Ajaib Singh, is more than 90 years of age and suffering from paralysis. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the injuries on the person of the appellants have not been explained by the prosecution. He has referred to the statement of Dr. Gian Singh, DW1, Medical Officer, Incharge, Addl. Primary Health Centre, Dharmkot, who medico-legally examined Nirmal Singh and noticed seven injuries on his person, including injury No.5 resulting into amputation of his left little finger. Similarly, Mukhtiar Kaur w/o Ajaib Singh, received three injuries. The learned counsel has lastly argued that it was a sudden fight and there was no intention to cause injuries. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that as the injuries on the person of the appellants were found to be simple, therefore, the prosecution is not bound to explain these injuries. Accordingly, he prays that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, be maintained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Admittedly, both the parties have suffered injuries. From the perusal of the statement of Dr. Yash Paul, PW1, it has revealed that after the X-ray was conducted, the same was forwarded for 5 CRA No.1261-SB of 2001 and CRR No.453 of 2002 (surgical) opinion to Dr. Jaidev Singh, Surgical Expert, PW9, from whose testimony, it emerges that the injury suffered by Jarmal Singh and attributed to Nirmal Singh, was not dangerous to life. In this eventuality, the same cannot be said to be an injury falling with the purview of Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC is not maintainable. However, on the basis of evidence on record, the injuries under Section 324 IPC are sufficiently proved. The learned State counsel has produced a short affidavit of Inspector Palwinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Zira, according to which, appellant-Ajaib Singh son of Dhara Singh is suffering from Paralysis. Otherwise also, he is presently about 90 years of age. In my considered opinion, no purpose would be served to send him into custody at this stage. The FIR is dated 30.11.1992. In the above circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, to be deposited with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur/Zira, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which shall be paid to the injured as compensation. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. The revision petition is also hereby dismissed. November 23, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE 6