IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 223 of 1994 Date of Decision : January 06, 2010 Karam Singh and others. ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Kundan Lal Chaudhari, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral): By one judgment, the Court intends to dispose of the present revision filed by Karam Singh, Mangal Singh and Kashmir Singh-accused and Criminal Revision No. 227 of 1994 filed by Sukha Singh, Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh-accused, as both of them have arisen out of one occurrence and same judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and thereafter, by the lower appellate Court in their appeal against their conviction and sentences. According to the prosecution, on 20.10.1986 at 6.30 p.m., Amrik Singh-complainant, alongwith his brother Ajit Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Mukhtar Singh, was going towards the colony of Mazhbies to arrange labour for harvesting the crop. Ajit Singh and Mukhtar Singh Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -2- were going ahead of the complainant. When Ajit Singh and Mukhtar Singh reached near the house of Niranjan Singh, they found accused Niranjan Singh empty handed, Karam Singh, Sukha, Kashmir Singh, Mangal Singh and Swaran Singh armed with a kirpan each, Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh with a datar each and Lalo and Mansa Singh carrying a dang each, standing there. Upon raising of lalkara by accused Niranjan Singh exhorting his companions to catch hold of Ajit Singh and not to allow him to escape, Karam Singh gave a kirpan blow on the left side of forehead of Ajit Singh, Sukha gave a kirpan blow on the left knee of Ajit Singh, and Kashmir Singh and Mangal Singh gave kirpan blows hitting Ajit Singh on his left knee. This was followed by Swaran Singh giving a kirpan blow on the left leg of Ajit Singh. Amrik Singh then gave a datar blow on the left knee of Ajit Singh, Balbir Singh- accused used the blunt side of the datar in giving an injury on the left eye of Ajit Singh, as a result whereof Ajit Singh fell down. Balbir Singh gave another datar blow from its blunt side on the back of head of Ajit Singh. Lalo gave two dang blows on his left leg whereas Mansa Singh gave dang blows on the left shoulder, right arm and back of left hand of Ajit Singh. When Mukhtar Singh tried to intervene and rescue Ajit Singh, he was given a datar blow on his forehead by accused Balbir Singh. This was followed by Mansa Singh giving two dang blows on the left eye and lips of Mukhtar Singh. Lalo gave three dang blows on the right knee, back of right arm and head of Mukhtar Singh. An alarm was then raised by the complainant, upon which the accused ran away while carrying their respective weapons. According to the complainant, Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -3- the Haveli of accused Niranjan Singh was situated near his land and the cattle of the accused used to destroy the complainant's crop. The complainant's brother Ajit Singh had lodged a protest, but it was to the dislike of the accused and for that reason they caused injuries to Ajit Singh, brother of the complainant and when Mukhtar Singh had moved forward to rescue Ajit Singh, he was also given injuries by the accused. Upon aforementioned statement Ex.PA made by Amrik Singh-complainant on 21.10.1986 at 6.45 p.m., at Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran, FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded in Police Station City Tarn Taran on 21.10.1986 at 6.55 p.m., for offences under Sections 326/324/323/149, 148 IPC. The injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, where they were medically examined. During the investigation of the case, which ensued following registration of the FIR, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Rough site plan was prepared and blood stained earth lifted from the spot. The police arrested the accused other than Kashmir Singh, Lalo @ Jeet Singh and Mangal Singh, and after completion of the investigation, presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against them. The aforementioned three accused were, however, placed in coulmn No. 2 of the same. The challaned accused were charged for offences under Sections 326/324/323/149, 148 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -4- The prosecution then examined PW1 Ajit Singh, who deposed about the involvement of Kashmir Singh, Lalo @ Jeet Singh and Mangal Singh-accused also in the crime. Accordingly, these three accused were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Upon their appearance all the ten accused were charged for the aforementioned offences. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined PW1 Ajit Singh-injured, PW2 Amrik Singh-complainant, PW3 Mukhtar Singh, the other injured in support of the ocular point. It also examined Dr.Karanjit Singh as PW4, Dr.Jagdish Kumar as PW5 and Dr.Kanwar Kulwinder Singh as PW6 in support of the medical evidence. The prosecution could not produce the remaining witnesses even after being afforded several opportunities and for that reason its evidence was closed by order on 10.8.1990. In their pleas before the trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that despite their innocence they had been falsely implicated in the instant case. However, they did not produce any evidence in support of their pleas. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, vide judgment dated 18.3.1992, acquitted accused Niranjan Singh, Lalo @ Jit Singh and Mansa Singh of the charges against them. Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -5- Even Swaran Singh-accused, who was initially challaned by the prosecution was acquitted on the ground that there were some discrepancies regarding the seat of the injury as to whether it was on the left leg or on the right leg of the injured. Out of the remaining six accused, Karam Singh, Sukha, Kashmir Singh and Amrik Singh were held guilty under Section 326 IPC whereas Mangal Singh and Balbir Singh were held guilty under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months. Mangal Singh and Balbir Singh were also held guilty under Section 324 IPC while Karam Singh, Sukha, Kashmir Singh and Amrik Singh were held guilty under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months each. All the six convicts were also sentenced to undergo RI for six months each under Section 148 IPC. The sentences on all the counts were ordered to run concurrently. The fine imposed upon the convicts was ordered to be paid to the two injured in equal shares by way of compensation. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the six convicts filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on 1.3.1994. They are now before this Court by way of present two revision petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the trial Court while charging the petitioners mentioned about causing of injuries by them in the area of Lal Khamba Chowk, Taran Taran whereas Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -6- according to the witnesses, the occurrence had taken place in the area of village Kad Gill. Even when the prosecution case was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated that the occurrence had taken place in the area of Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran, and, therefore, the conviction and sentences of the petitioners is liable to be reversed. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place in the area of village Kad Gill. After the occurrence, the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, where they were got admitted. On the next day when Amrik Singh-complainant was going to the Police Station to lodge the report, he came across ASI Amrik Singh, who recorded his statement at Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran, at 6.45 p.m. In column No. 4 of the FIR, it came to be recorded by the police that the occurrence had taken place in the area of Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran, which was at a distance of one kilometer from the Police Station little realising that the occurrence had taken place in the area of village Kad Gill and not at Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran. At the latter place only the statement of complainant-Amrik Singh was recorded. For that reason and may be due to oversight it came to be recorded in the charge sheet that the occurrence had taken place in the area of Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran, whereas the actual incident had taken place in the area of village Kad Gill. The same mistake crept in when the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Moreover, under Section 464 Cr.P.C, no finding Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -7- of sentence arrived at by the Court of competent jurisdiction becomes invalid merely on the ground that there was an error in the charge. The only situation where such an error can prove fatal is where the Court of appeal or revision is of the opinion that a failure of justice has infact been occasioned on that count. All the accused were aware of the prosecution case regarding the occurrence having taken place in the area of village Kad Gill and not in the area of Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran. Therefore, they were not misled on account of an error in framing of the charge or when the case of the prosecution was put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that the occurrence had taken place in the area of Char Khamba Chowk, City Tarn Taran and not in the area of village Kad Gill. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Swaran Singh-accused, who was attributed a grievous injury on the person of Ajit Singh, has since been acquitted and, therefore, the remaining four accused, who stand convicted under Section 326 IPC are not liable for causing grievous injuries to the witnesses. According to the prosecution case, as was clear from the statement Ex.PA made by complainant-Ajit Singh, Swaran Singh had given a kirpan blow on the left leg of Ajit Singh. However, at the trial, there was some confusion as to whether Swaran Singh had given a kirpan blow on the left leg or right leg of Ajit Singh-injured. Moreover, he had not been attributed any injury on the person of Mukhtar Singh- injured. Accordingly, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -8- the charges against him. His acquittal will, however, not give any advantage or benefit to the remaining convicts. It is also submitted that Dr.Karanjit Singh PW4, who had medico-legally examined injured-Ajit Singh, did not X-rayed any of injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 6 on his person before declaring them to be grievous in nature. He did not mention the dimension of the cut found by him in the bone and under these circumstances the conviction of the accused for offence under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained. Perusal of statement of PW4 Dr.Karanjit Singh would reveal that he found thirteen injuries in all on the person of Ajit Singh- injured. Out of them injuries No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 were declared grievous in nature. He clearly mentioned in the medico-legal report that he found a chip of bone present and frontal bone cut under injury No.1, cutting of patella into two portions under injury No.2, cutting of tibial tuberosity and a chip of bone present under injury No.4 and underlying bone under injury No.6 was cut. As the cuts/fractures were visible to him, he declared the aforementioned injuries to be grievous in nature. When the accused were given their right to cross-examine him, they did not suggest that his opinion regarding declaring injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 6 being grievous, was wrong and having been given without subjecting any of the said injuries to X-ray examination. The only suggestion put by them to PW4 Dr.Karanjit Singh was that he had made manipulation in the medical reports and that he did not examine the injured. This suggestion was denied by him. The accused again suggested to him that Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -9- the injured did not come to him to the hospital. He, once again, denied the suggestion. Therefore, statement of PW4 Dr.Karanjit Singh has to be believed to hold that injuries No.1, 2, 4 and 6 on the person of Ajit Singh were grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 20.10.1986. The petitioners have faced the agony of criminal prosecution all this while. The trial remained pending for more than five years. Even the appeal filed by them was decided after it remained pending for about two years. On dismissal of their appeal, the petitioners were taken into custody on 1.3.1994. The revisions filed by them were admitted on 18.5.1994 when the petitioners were granted bail, and, thus, they have remained behind bars for a period of more than two and a half months after the dismissal of their appeals. Apart from the same, some of the petitioners also remained behind the bars during the trial of the case for sometime. The petitioners are not previous convicts. There is no material on the record that after the present occurrence, the petitioners have committed any such offence, once again, or caused affront to the complainant party. Therefore, their sentences be reduced to that already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has submitted that the accused caused thirteen injuries to Ajit Singh and five to Mukhtar Singh. Out of the injuries received by Ajit Singh, four were declared grievous in nature including fracture of frontal bone. Therefore, it is not a case for showing any leniency to the accused in the matter of sentences. Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -10- The occurrence had taken place more than 23 years back. There was no serious enmity between the parties except for straying of the cattle of the accused in the fields of the complainant. At the same time, the accused had caused indiscriminate injuries to Ajit Singh and Mukhtar Singh. Four of the injuries found on the person of Ajit Singh were declared grievous in nature. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioners are either previous convicts or during the last 23 years or so they have misused the concession of bail or caused any affront to the complainant party. After the dismissal of their appeal on 1.3.1994, they were granted relief of bail by this Court on 18.5.1994. Thus, they have remained behind the bars for a period of two and a half months. Apart from the same, some of the petitioners also remained in confinement for some period during the trial of the case. Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners, once again, behind the bars to serve the remaining sentences imposed upon them, more so, when they can be directed to adequately compensate the two injured persons in the case. Resultantly, the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners are reduced to that of already undergone by them. The sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon each of them is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. Out of the aforesaid amount, upon realization, Rs.40,000/- be paid to Ajit Singh-injured while the remaining amount be paid to Mukhtar Singh-injured as compensation. The fine of Rs.1000/- imposed upon each of the petitioners by the trial Crl. Revision No. 223 of 1994 -11- Court, if already paid, shall be adjusted against the said amount. The total amount of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners with the trial Court within six months from today or else the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed upon them by the trial Court shall get revived. The revisions are, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 06, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1