Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 Date of decision : February 17, 2010 * * * * * Surjit Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. R.P Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Surjit Singh has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 21.9.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which appeal against the judgment passed by JMIC, Moga dated 17.2.2001 was dismissed qua the petitioner. Surjit Singh son of Sunder Singh and Harbans Kaur wife of Surjit Singh were sent for trial by SHO, Bhaghapurana on the allegation that on 11.8.1997 at about 6:20 p.m, they had caused injuries to Gursewak Singh and his wife Gurcharan Kaur. Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [2] Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.8.1997 at 6:20 p.m, Gurcharan Kaur, complainant was present in her house. When she came out of her house then sighted her brother-in-law, Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh had caught hold of her husband Gursewak Singh. Harbans Kaur wife of Surjit Singh gave beatings to Gursewak Singh. Raula was raised and when she came forward to rescue her husband then she was caught hold by Harbans kaur and was given beatings with a wooden log. Surjit Singh gave kappa blow on her right leg. Accused gave more blows to her. On hearing raula, Jaswinder Singh came to spot. After causing injuries accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Bhaghapurana, where they were medico legally examined. Motive to cause injuries was that Surjit Singh while clearing the passage was throwing waste in their fields. Gursewak Singh restrained the accused not to throw the waste material in their fields then caused injuries. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented. Charge under Sections 323/324/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Gurcharan Kaur PW-1, Gursewak Singh PW-2, Dr. Arvinder Gill PW-3, ASI Suraj Pal Singh, PW-4 and closed its evidence. Dr. Arvinder Gill PW-3 had medico legally examined the injured and noticed following injuries on the person of Gurcharan Kaur: 1. An incised wound of 5 x 1 cm on scalp placed Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [3] obliquely over mid line from left to right 8 cm from the hair line. Bone deep, fresh bleeding was present. 2. A reddish contusion of 8x2 cm on front of right thigh 12 cm above knee joint. 3. An abrasion of ½ cm x ½ cm on the lip of left side lose to lateral angle. 4. Complaint of pain in whole of back. Following injuries were found on the person of Gursewak Singh: 1. Complaint of pain in scalp as he alleged his hair are pulled. 2. A reddish contusion of 3 x 2 cm on left scapular region. 3. A reddish contusion of 14x2 cm on the back of right shoulder joint extended over the lateral aspect of scapular region. 4. A reddish contusion of 10x2 cm on lateral aspect of right scapula in middle. 5. A reddish contusion of 12 x 2 cm on the back on right side along with costal region. 6.A reddish contusion of 12x2 cm on the back of right side 4 cm below and parallel to injury no.5. 7. A reddish contusion of 5 x 4 cm at level of inferior angle of right scapula. 8. A reddish contusion of 8 x 4 cm on the right buttock. Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [4] 9. A reddish contusion of 8x 4 cm on the left buttock. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, trial Court had convicted both the accused under Sections 324/323/34 IPC and sentenced as under: i) Under Section 324 IPC Surjit Singh was directed to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of 21 days. ii)Under Sections 324/34 IPC Harbans Kaur was directed to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 21 days. iii) U/S 323/34 IPC Surjit Singh and Harbans Kaur were directed to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 15 days each. iv) U/S 323/34 IPC Harbans Kaur was directed to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 15 days each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [5] Against the judgment/order dated 17.2.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga, appeal was preferred. Harbans Kaur was ordered to be released on probation, whereas Surjit Singh was directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Appeal was accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of 15 hours in lodging the FIR but delay was not explained. There are number of contradictions/discrepancies in the statements of PWs. If the injuries were caused by the petitioner then lenient view be taken because petitioner is related to the deceased. Petitioner is the real brother of the injured. He has already undergone more than two months of imprisonment. Petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family and is ready to compensate the injured. Learned State counsel argued that delay was explained. Occurrence was at 6:30 p.m. After occurrence, injured were shifted to hospital at about 9:35 p.m. They were medico-legally examined. Ruqa was sent then police party came to hospital. Statement of the complainant was recorded at 10:10 a.m. FIR was recorded at 10:20 a.m on the next date. As per doctor, injuries cannot be self-suffered or self-inflicted. Petitioner was named. There was no idea to leave the real culprit to name the petitioner. Minor contradictions are immaterial rather occurr with the passage of time. Occurrence was at about 6:30 p.m on 11.8.1997 near the house of the complainant-party. After the occurrence, injured were shifted to the hospital and at 9:15/9:30 p.m, injured were medico- legally examined. Intimation was sent to the police station then ASI, Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [6] Suraj Pal Singh came to the Civil hospital, Bhaghapura. After getting opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured. Statement of Gurcharan Kaur was recorded. Delay was fully explained because husband and wife were injured. First priority of the attendants was to shift the injured to the nearest hospital for medical aid. Jaswinder Singh, nephew of the complainant had witnessed the occurrence but he was not examined. In case there was no occurrence then Jaswinder Singh could easily be produced in defence by the petitioner. Suppose there is a delay then delay itself is not fatal for ignoring the prosecution story. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstance to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that story is unnatural as there are minor discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the PWs. Admittedly there are minor contradictions/improvements in statements of the PWs. Improvements/contradictions are natural when eye witnesses appeared in the Court on 10.4.1998 i.e after the expiry of about one year. Both the injured are not well educated. Rustic villagers cannot be expected to depose all the facts minutely. Appearance of contradictions/improvements shows that story is natural. When occurrence was during day time near the house of the complainant-party. No question of dispute qua identification of the petitioner. Petitioner is related to the injured. Injuries cannot be self- suffered or self-inflicted as per doctor. So injured were not expected to name the petitioner by leaving the real culprit. In case there was false implication then complaints could easily be sent to different authorities. Till today, no complaint to any authority. Crl. Revision No. 2018 of 2002 [7] Last submission of the petitioner is that he is the real brother of Gursewak Singh. Second injured is Gurcharan Kaur wife of Gursewak Singh. Occurrence was on 11.8.1997 and at that time, petitioner was 65 years old. At this stage, petitioner is near about 78- 80 years old. Petitioner is the first offender. All the injuries on the person of Gursewak Singh were found to be simple caused by blunt weapon whereas four injuries were noted on the person of Gurcharan Kaur. Except injury no.1, other injuries were declared to be simple in nature and injury no.1 was kept under observation but there is no report to the effect that the same is grievous. Petitioner has already undergone more than two months of imprisonment. Before the present occurrence, there was no enmity amongst the parties. Parties being related to each other are to reside peacefully if lenient view is taken otherwise, there are chances of further litigation. Keeping in view the relation of the petitioner with the injured and his age, I take lenient view. Sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- more as compensation, payable to the injured Gursewak Singh within a period of two months before the trial Court failing which revision would stand dismissed and petitioner shall undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. February 17, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE