IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 Date of decision : 18.2.2009 Virsa Singh and others … Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia Present: Mr.Kamaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Virsa Singh, Dalip Singh and Kashmir Singh were convicted and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira as under:- Accused Virsa Singh 1. Under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. 3. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 Accused Dalip Singh 1. Under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 2 months. 2. Under section 325 IPC to undergo RI for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. 3. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Accused Kashmir Singh 1. Under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 2 months. 2. Under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. 3. Under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Aggrieved against the same, they filed an appeal. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur maintained the conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Finding of the courts below has been assailed in the present petition. Briefly stated, Ajit Singh son of Varyam Singh aged about 60 years made a statement Exhibit P-A before Sub Inspector- Rajinder Singh on 1.1.1995 at Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. It is stated 2 Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 that Ajit Singh-complainant is resident of Sunwan Dakhli, Mallanwala and do agriculture work. On the night of 31.12.1995 at about 8.30 p.m, he was sitting in his house with his family members after taking his meals. Then at that time, accused Virsa Singh came in front of his house and raised lalkara calling them to come outside so that dispute over the passage of field can be settled once for all. When they came outside by opening the door, Virsa Singh armed with Takua, Kashmir Singh armed with Kirpan, Dalip Singh armed with dang and Desa Singh armed with dang were standing there. All of them were in a drunken condition. Kashmir Singh and Desa Singh raised lalkara whereupon, Virsa Singh gave a takua blow from the right side on the right leg of Ajit Singh-complainant due to which he fell down. While he was lying fallen, Dalip Singh gave a dang blow, which hit on the outer side of his right leg. Gurmej Kaur wife of Ajit Singh intervened to rescue her husband, whereupon Kashmir Singh gave a dang blow on the person of Gurmej Kaur, which hit on her right shoulder. At that time, Swaran Singh and Rachhpal Singh sons of the complainant arrived at the spot, seeing them, accused decamped from the spot. Sons of the complainant brought him and their mother to the house. On the basis of statement made by the complainant, a case under Section 325, 342 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. Subsequently, a medical board was constituted, which, declared the injury inflicted on leg of Ajit Singh as grievous in 3 Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 nature and section 326 IPC was also added. Desa Singh accused was found innocent and was placed in coloumn No.2. After submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.PC, trial commenced and Ajit Singh appeared as PW-1. He reiterated version given by him in the FIR. Sakattar Singh, Patwari, appeared as PW-2 and proved khasra, girdawari and jamabandi (Exhibits P-1 & P-2). He also proved the ownership of Ajit Singh over the land in dispute. Dr.Ramesh Kumar appeared as PW-3, who had examined Ajit Singh and his wife Gurmej Kaur on 1.1.1995. He found the following injuries on the person of PW1 Ajit Singh:- 1. Incised punctured wound 0.25 Cm x 0.20 Cm into 1. Cm. spindal shaped on medial side of right leg. 12 Cm from knee joint. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Lacerated wound 0.20 Cm x 0.20 Cm. having reddish bluish contusion 3.5.Cm x 4 Cm on all around the wounds on front of right leg, 11 cm from Knee Joint. Crepitus, un-natural mobility was present. Underlying bone was fractured. Fresh bleeding was present. Dr.G.S.Negi, member of medical board constituted by Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur re-examined Ajit Singh on 5.1.1995. The following injuries were found on the person of Ajit Singh by medical Board. 1 1 Cm long stitched wound with one stitch on the medical aspect of upper part of right leg 12 Cm from the 4 Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 right knee joint. Local tenderness present. X-ray was advised. 2. 0.5 Cm long stitched wound with one stitch on the entromedial aspect of right leg in its upper part 11 Cm from the right knee joint. Diffuse swelling 14 Cm x 12 Cm on the upper part of right leg. Local tenderness present. X-ray advised. 3. Diffuse swelling around the ankle (right) with two scaped abrasions 1.5. x 0.25 cm and 4 cm x 0.25 cm of the right medical malueneous and 3 cm below it respectively. Local tenderness present. Advised x-ray. 4. Scapped abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the right parital region 6 cm from the right ear. Advised x-ray. The scap was firm and adherent. Injury No.1 was declared to be grievous in nature. Dr.H.C.Garg, Radiologist, appeared as PW-5. He conducted X-ray examination of injured Ajit Singh and proved his report Ex.P13 and Ex.P12, vide which he gave the nature of weapon used and declared fracture on right leg of the injured, complainant. Swaran Singh son of Ajit Singh complainant was given up unnecessary. Rachhpal Singh appeared as PW-6, and Gurmej Kaur appeared as PW7 who are the eye witnesses of the said occurrence. All the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. No one had been examined in defence. 5 Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 Shri Kamaljit Singh Sidhu appearing for the petitioners has stated that no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. He has referred to the testimony of PW-3 Dr.Ramesh Kumar and stated that injury No.1 shows incised punctured wound of 0.25 Cm x 0.20 Cm into 1. Cm. spindal shaped on medial side of right leg. He contended that such injury at knee joint cannot be caused by a takua as blade of takua is incised. He has stated that the medical evidence does not disclose that injury was caused by petitioner No.1, Virsa Singh. At the first instance, this argument may look attractive. But in the present case, a perusal of the cross examination of the doctor shows that no question was put to him and even the weapon was not shown to him. It is only after seeing the weapon, its nature and dimension, the doctor could say whether injury no.1, could be caused by the takua or not. From the perusal of cross examination of the doctor, it is evident that he has stated that injury no.1 is rarely self suffered. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that in the present case, there is delay of 14 hours in lodging of the FIR. Delay in each and every case is not fatal to the prosecution. In the present case, occurrence has taken place in the house of the witnesses Ajit Singh and Gurmej Kaur. They are injured at the place of occurrence. Occurrence has taken place in front of their house and in the night 6 Crl. Revision M-2161 of 2002 they are expected to be at their house. Discrepancies or improvements cannot be appreciated by the revisional court. This court after examining the evidence, adjudging oral submissions, has no option but to affirm the conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court below. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 1.1.1995, 14 years are going to elapse. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have committed no offence during the pendency of this case. He has prayed that after 14 years, accused- petitioners should not be sent behind the bar. The court has to weigh the mitigating, aggravating circumstances while determining the quantum of sentence. The protracted trial is one mitigating circumstance which tend to weight in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioners under Section 326 IPC is reduced to 9 months whereas, sentence awarded under Section 325 is reduced to 8 months. However, the sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently With the aforesaid modification, the present petition is disposed of. [ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] Judge 18.02.2009 sd 7