Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 Date of Decision:29.07.2009 Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby she dismissed the appeal filed by the accused Sukhdev Singh as well as Nachhattar Singh against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 16.3.1998 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali vide which he convicted and sentenced Sukhdev Singh as well as Nachhattar Singh accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the defaulter would further undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -2- imprisonment for three months and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months with a further direction that out of the total fine of Rs.13,000/- (Rs.6500/- each accused), if paid by the accused, the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be given to the complainant Swaran Singh as compensation. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Swaran Singh made a statement before the police in the terms that on 24.2.1991, he was returning home from his fields. When he neared the shop of Tainy Tailor, meanwhile, the accused Sukhdev Singh and Nachhattar Singh armed with gandasa each appeared all of a sudden and raised lalkara that he be taught a lesson for not letting them take grass from his field. The accused Nachhattar Singh wielded gandasa blow. To ward off the same, he raised his right hand. The gandasa blow fell underneath the thumb of his right hand. Thereafter, both the accused delivered various gandasa blows from their reverse side which hit him. Manjit Singh as well as Harnek Singh who were standing nearby had witnessed the whole occurrence and ultimately they saved him from the clutches of the accused, who decamped from the scene along with their respective weapons. The injured Swaran Singh was got medico legally examined. On his statement, the case was registered. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -3- was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused were charged under Sections 323/324/325/326 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. In defence, Nachhattar Singh accused examined his wife Sukhdev Kaur as DW1. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, Sukhdev Singh accused has preferred this revision. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. As pleaded in the grounds of revision, both the Courts below have grossly erred in returning the finding of guilt in respect of present petitioner- Sukhdev Singh as his identity could not be established by the prosecution. The injuries grievous as well as simple have been attributed to Nachhattar Singh and not to this petitioner. Even the alleged witnesses, i.e., Manjit Singh PW4 and Harnek Singh PW5 who are close relations of the Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -4- complainant did not know about the identity of the petitioner. Further as per the testimony of Sukhdev Kaur DW1, at the time of occurrence,the petitioner was not with them. Thus, the petitioner has been roped in this case falsely. As is borne out from the record, no test identification was got arranged for establishing the identity of the petitioner Sukhdev Singh. His identity being doubtful, the Courts below were not justified in recording conviction qua him. To controvert these pleas, the learned State Counsel has maintained that the thrust of the grounds of revision is that the identity of the petitioner has not been established, but this plea is belied by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. I have well considered the pleas/ submissions. Swaran Singh PW2, a stamped witness has solemnly affirmed that Sukhdev Singh (referring to the petitioner) duly armed with gandasa along with Nachhattar Singh gave injuries on his body. As per the evidence tendered by Dr. G.S. Somani PW3 as many as eight injuries were found on his person. Of these injury No.3 is an incised wound on the palmer aspect of the right thumb in its middle. The remaining injuries are contusions. The number and nature of injuries are suggestive of the fact that the same could not be the handiwork of one person. Manjit Singh PW4 an eye witness has stated in unequivocal terms that thereafter Sukhdev Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side, which landed a little bit above the right ankle of Swaran Singh and, thereafter they (referring to Swaran Singh as well as Nachhattar Singh accused) gave more gandasa blows numbering 6 to 7 from their reverse side. In identical terms, is the statement of Harnek Singh PW5 another eye witness. A close examination of theirs as well as the stamped Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -5- witness would reveal that when they were under cross-examination, no material favourable to the defence could be elicited or wrenched out. This apart, no previous ill-will or animus or enmity has been imputed either to Manjit Singh or Harnek Singh PW for deposing against the petitioner. Their evidence cumulatively nullifies the plea raised by the petitioner in the grounds of revision. To put it differently, on the basis of the above discussed evidence, the identity of the petitioner stands abundantly established. The test identification parade is not a substantive evidence, rather a corroborative piece of evidence. That being so, it would be going too far to say merely on the basis of non-arranging of the test identification parade that the identity of this petitioner is not demonstrated. Sequelly, the pleas raised in the grounds of revision being devoid of any merit are hereby jettisoned. Now a word about defence needs to be recorded. The sum and substance of the evidence tendered by Sukhdev Kaur DW1, the wife of co- accused Nachhattar Singh is that when she was returning from the fields with a head load of Neera, meanwhile, Swaran Singh complainant in an inebriated condition followed her and made an attempt to outrage her modesty and she gave a push to him and that on hearing her noise, her husband came there and he gave beatings to him (Swaran Singh) with the aid of lathi, but at the time of occurrence Sukhdev Singh (referring to the present petitioner) was not with her husband. She has also testified that Sukhdev Singh accused is the son of her husband's mother's sister. Thus to say the least of it, he is closely related to her husband. That being so, she was morally bound to depose in favour of Sukhdev Singh. It is in her cross- examination that the occurrence took place at 4:30 P.M., but the matter was Criminal Revision No.1071 of 1998 -6- not reported in writing to the police or any other officer. Strangely enough that she or her husband had pocketed this shame silently. Had the occurrence as projected by her verily taken place, she or her husband would have left no stone unturned in reporting the matter to the police. That would have been a good defence for Nachhattar Singh. In these premises, the defence evidence fails to inspire any confidence. Consequently, the same is rejected. On scrutinising and analysing the entire evidence, it transpires that no holes can be picked in the findings returned by both the Courts below. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. As per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioner has undergone 3 months and 17 days of the actual sentence. He has been facing the agony of trial since 1991. This incidence being more than 18 years old, to my mind, the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (3 months and 17 days). With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision stands dismissed. July 29, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No