CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 150 OF 2001 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Devinder Singh and Others ……Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Ruminder Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab A.N.JINDAL, J The petitioners accused (herein referred as “the petitioners”) have assailed the judgment and order dated 1.08.2000 passed by Additional Sssions Judge, Sangrur dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 28.09.1998 vide which the petitioners were convicted under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of Indian Penal Code for causing 22(grevious as well as simple) injuries on both the legs and arms of injured Labh Singh resulting into various fractures. Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioners are that injured Labh Singh, when became fit to make statements on 1.04.1995, disclosed before ASI Hans Raj that on 31.03.1995 he along with his brother Mohinder Singh were returning from their fields to the house and when they reached near the electric motor of Ram Singh son of Jangir Singh resident of Bhawanigarh, then Hardev Singh armed with Gandasa, Gurdeep Singh armed with Takua and Devinder Singh equipped with Gandasa came from the back side of their electric CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 2 Motor, Gurdeep Singh raised Lalkara for catching him and not to allow him to go-alive whereupon complainant and his brother Mohinder Singh started running backwards. At this all the petitioners followed them, caught them and started assailing them. Gurdeep Singh inflicted takua blow from its reverse side on the right arm and right shoulder of the complainant. Devinder Singh gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on the right foot on the complainant near the ankle and also gave another gandasa blow near his right elbow. Then, accused Hardev Singh inflicted a Gandasa blow from its blunt side on the back side of left head of the complainant, due to which the complainant fell down on the ground, then Hardev Singh inflicted another gandasa blow from its reverse side near the elbow on the left arm of the complainant. Gurdeep Singh gave a Takua blow from its reverse side on the left ankle of the complainant. At the time when he was lying on the ground, all the aforesaid three petitioners cause more injuries to him. In the mean time, Sukhdev Singh son of Chet Singh who was going towards the fields came to his rescue, at this all the three accused fled away from the scene with their respective weapons. He was shifted to the Civil Dispensary, Bhawanigarh. The motive behind the occurrence is that in the year 1987 the complainant and his brother had purchased five acres of land which was being objected by the petitioners, the petitioners having been annoyed, had caused injuries to Gurcharan brother of the complainant regarding which criminal case is pending in the Court. In order to bring home the guilt of the petitioners, the prosecution examined Dr. Harbans Singh, Radiologist(PW1), who radiologically examined the injured and proved his report(Ex.PB) and he also proved the skiagrams(EXs.P1 toP9). Dr. Sat Pal, Medical Officer (PW2), who conducted the medical examination of injured Labh Singh CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 3 and had found 22 injuries on his person. He proved the copy of the M.L.R.(Ex.PD) and opined that on the basis of X-ray report(Ex.PA),that injuries nos. 5, 11, 14 and 18 were grievous in nature. Labh Singh, the complainant(PW3), has reiterated the allegations as stated by him in FIR Ex.PW3/A and his testimony has been corroborated by Mohinder Singh(PW4). In their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their innocence. They further explained that there was land in dispute between the complainant and the petitioners and the complainant party wanted to take possession from the petitioners forcibly and with this intention the complainant party falsely implicated them in the case. In defence, the petitioners tendered copy of the order(Ex.DA). The trial ended in conviction and their appeals were also dismissed. However, the two petitioners Devinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh have preferred this present revision petition. Having scrutinized the matter in depth, it transpires that the motive behind the occurrence stands fully established. PW-2 complainant Labh Singh suffered as many as 22 injuries at the hands of the petitioners out of which four injuries were found to be grievous in nature. Dr. Satpal,Medical Officer, Bhawanigarh while appearing as PW-2 has disclosed the following injuries on the person of Labh Singh:- 1. I cms x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margin over front of the left lower leg over upper 1/3rd part. Little fresh bleeding was present. 2. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound over front of the left lower leg at its lower 1/3rd part. Little fresh bleeding was present. CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 4 3. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins over front of left lower leg at its lower end. Little fresh bleeding was present. 4. 3 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound over middle of the dorsum of left foot. Mild to moderate. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 5. 2 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated would of two in number just above the left lateral malleolus. Mild to moderate. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray advised. 6. 1cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins over front of right lower leg at its upper part. Little fresh bleeding was present. 7. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins 2 cms below the injury No. 6. Little fresh bleeding was present. 8. 1.5 cms x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins 4 cms below the injury No. 7. Little fresh bleeding was present. 9. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins 5 cms below the injury NO. 8. Little fresh bleeding was present. 10. 3 cms x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins 5 cms below the injury No. 9. Little fresh bleeding was present. 11. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins over the lateral aspect of right lower leg at its lower end. Mild to moderate. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 12. 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound over lateral aspect of left upper arm in the middle. Little fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. 13. 1cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound 3 cms above the left elbow. Little fresh bleeding was present. Advised X-ray. CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 5 14. Severe pain, tenderness with huge swelling with reddish bruise over upper part of left fore-arm. X-ray was advised. 15. 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound over dorsal aspect of left fore-arm at its lower end. Little fresh bleeding was present. 16. 1 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound over terminal phalyn of ring finger of left hand. Mild to moderate. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 17. Severe pain, tenderness, huge swelling with rectangular reddish abrasion over lateral aspect of right upper arm in the middle. X-ray was advised. 18. Pain, swelling with tenderness at upper end of right fore-arm rectangular reddish bruise was present. X-ray was advised. 19. 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound with irregular margins over dorsal aspect of right wrist. Little fresh bleeding was present. 20. 0.5 cm x 0.5cm lacerated wound over middle of right shoulder. Little fresh bleeding was present. 21. Swelling pain, tenderness dorsum of the right hand. X-ray was advised. 22. 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm lacerated wound over middle of the occiput. Little fresh bleeding was present. Note examination done with the naked eyes. PW-1Radiologist who had conducted X-ray examination declared injuries No.5, 11, 14 and 18 to be grievous in nature. Testimony of Labh Singh PW-3 stands corroborated by PW-4 Mohinder Singh in all material particulars, despite the lengthy cross examination conducted upon these two witnesses, no such glaring inconsistencies have been detected so as to disbelieve their credibility and trust worthiness. The petitioners appear to have designedly and desperately caused such large number of injuries so as to leave the injured as half dead, but CRR NO. 150 OF 2001 6 still they have been convicted only under Sections 325 or 323 of Indian Penal Code. Since, no revision has been filed by the State, I am unable to comment on the same. The contention by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is based on the interested testimony is of no consequence. No reasons for disbelieving the complainant injured and Mohinder Singh who in all probabilities were present at the spot and suffered injuries. They had no such enmity so as to substitute the petitioners in place of the real culprits. The delay in lodging the FIR stands fully explained as occurrence in this case took place at 10:00 a.m on 31.03.1995 and the injured having 22 injuries on his person was shifted to Civil Dispensary, Bhawanigarh on the same day at about 11:00 a.m. Thereafter, ruqa was sent by the Medical Officer at 11:05 a.m. on the same day. The police reached the Civil Dispensary at about 12:40 p.m. and found the injured not fit to make the statement. Ultimately he was found fit by the doctor on 1.04.1995, consequently his statement was recorded by the police. Therefore, the delay in this case cannot said to be unexplained. Keeping in view the number of injuries and the fractures on the person of Labh Singh, no leniency in the quantum of sentence is called for. For the above stated reasons, this petition being un- merited is dismissed and Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court would recover the emoluments permissible to him. Copy of the judgment is forwarded to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 16th February, 2009 SKaushik