IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2004 Date of decision: October 05, 2010 Gurnam Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 9.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 27.3.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 452/34 and 324/34 IPC (on both counts); rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 326/34 IPC. However, the sentence was reduced from two years to one year under Sections 324 as well as 452 read with Section 34 IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 30.3.1998, at about 9.30 p.m. the complainant Gurtej Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') had gone to the house to Pal Singh for some conversation. Accused Gurnam Singh, Balbir Singh, both armed with gandasas and Ram Singh armed with soti came there. Gurnam Singh exhorted to teach him (complainant) a lesson. At which, Ram Singh inflicted soti (stick) blow on the right elbow; Balbir Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its sharp side above the forehead on the right side; Gurnam Singh inflicted gandasa blow on the left side of forehead of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, Pal Singh and Jodha Singh, (real brothers of the complainant) came there and tried to rescue the complainant. In the meantime, Ram Singh accused further inflicted soti blow; Balbir Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its reverse side and Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2004 -2- Gurnam Singh inflicted gandasa blow on the ribs of the right side and Gurnam Singh inflicted another gandasa blow on the back side of the shoulder of the complainant. Accused Ram Singh also inflicted soti blows to Pal Singh who tried to rescue the complainant. On raising hue and cry, the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant-injured was removed to the Civil Hospital for medico-legal examination. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 323/324/326/452 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Gurtej Singh (PW1), Jodha Singh (PW2), Dr. Rajinder Garg (PW3), Dr. Ramnik Mangla (PW4), Labh Singh (PW5) and Subhash Chander (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Bhola Singh (DW1), Anil Kumar Gupta (DW2) and Mohinder Singh (DW3). The trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed with certain modification in the sentence. Record perused. Having examined the impugned judgment, the occurrence in this case took place on 30.3.1998 at 9.30/9.45 p.m. The injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, Rampura. The Investigating Officer visited the hospital at 4.00 a.m. on 31.3.1998 and moved application Ex.PC seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured, upon which the doctor vide report Ex.PC/1 declared the injured to be unfit to make the statement. Thereafter, on 31.3.1998, at about 12.00 noon statement of the complainant Ex.PA was recorded on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW6/B was registered at about 1.40 p.m. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, the FIR cannot be said to be delayed one. Even otherwise, the first anxiety of the attendants is to save the life of the injured than to move to the police for registration of the case. As regards the applicability of Section 452 IPC is concerned, it may be observed that the accused armed with deadly weapons entered the Criminal Revision No.1872 of 2004 -3- house of Pal Singh when the complainant had gone there. They had caused the injuries to the complainant as well as Pal Singh. As such, it is suffice to say that the accused had criminally trespassed into the house of Pal Singh and caused him injuries as well as to Pal Singh. No doubt, the case of the prosecution hinges on the testimonies of related witnesses i.e. Gurtej Singh (PW1) and Yodha Singh (PW2). But their testimonies could not be ignored or disbelieved solely on the ground of their status as such, especially when the presence of the witnesses at the spot is established beyond doubt. The entire prosecution version cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that the witnesses so examined are relation witnesses specifically when they are stamped witnesses. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The Appellate Court has elaborately dealt with all the material facts very elaborately. As such, finding of fact returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused is maintained. The re-appreciation of evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible. As regards the quantum of sentence, since the sword of sentence remained hanging over the head of the petitioners since the year 1985 till date and they have already suffered a lot on account of the criminal proceedings pending against them and that they have already undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence, therefore, I do not find any justification to send them again in jail in the peculiar circumstances of the case and a lenient view deserves to be taken in his favour. Resultantly, while dismissing the revision petition, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to that of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, they are further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- (i.e. Rs.5000/- each) as compensation to the injured within three months from today, which would be shared by the injured persons equally, failing which they would serve the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, for compliance. October 05, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge