Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2005. Date of Decision : 16.2.2011. Tirath Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram K. Chaudhri, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated September 1st, 2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 2nd, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pahgwara, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC RI for 3 months -- -- 326 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.1000/- RI for 1 month The factual background in nutshell is as follows:- 2. On December 1st, 1998 at about 5.30 p.m. Surjit Kaur (PW-1) injured was going to the clinic of Dr. Batra in her village Chachoki Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. Ranjit Singh her son was following her. When she reached near the shop of Sarban Singh alias Sabo, Tirath Singh-petitioner started hurling abuses on her. She tried to make him understand. Meanwhile, Ranjit Singh also reached there. The petitioner went inside his house and brought a Talwar (sword) of 3'x3”. He tried to cause a blow to Ranjit Singh but Surjit Kaur intervened to save him. In that process, she raised her hands and petitioner gave her a Talwar blow. He gave her another blow on Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2005 2 her head from the handle of Kirpan. An alarm was raised. The petitioner ran away from the spot. 3. Surjit Kaur was brought to Civil Hospital, Phillaur where she was medically examined by Dr. Vidhur Bhalla (PW-4). From there, she was referred to C.M.C., Ludhiana. In C.M.C. Ludhiana, she remained hospitalized from December 2nd, 1998 to December 7th, 1998. Vide x-ray examination reports (Exhibit PW-5/C and PW-5/D), it was found that there was large chip fracture of lower end of radius with fractured fragment displaced laterally and fracture of trapezoid bone. The Police was informed. Santokh Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector reached the Hospital and recorded the statement of Surjit Kaur (Exhibit PA). He appended his endorsement (Exhibit PW-5/B). First Information Report (Exhibit PW-5/C) was recorded. Rough site plan (Exhibit PW/D) was prepared. Blood strained clothes of Surjit Kaur were taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW-3/A). 4. On December 18th, 1998 the petitioner was arrested and was interrogated. He got recovered Kirpan used by him in the commission of offence from a room of his house in village Chackori. The Kirpan was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW-5/G). 5. The motive behind the occurrence was that there was a matrimonial dispute between Ranjit Singh and his wife and a divorce petition was pending. The petitioner was relation of wife of Ranjit Singh. 6. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial. 7. In support of its case prosecution examined six witnesses viz. Surjit Kaur (PW-1), Ranjit Singh (PW-2), Manjit Singh (PW-3), Dr. Vidhur Bhalla (PW-4), Santokh Singh (PW-5) and Rai Singh (PW-5). 8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied his complicity and pleaded innocence. Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2005 3 9. In this case eye witness account has been rendered by Surjit Kaur (PW-1)-injured-author of First Information Report and her son Ranjit Singh (PW-2). They have described the occurrence as narrated in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Both of them have spoken with one voice that on the fateful day viz. on December 1st, 1998 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner firstly hurled abuses at Surjit Kaur. She prohibited him from doing so. Meantime, her son Ranjit Singh, who was following her, also reached the spot. The petitioner went inside his house and brought a Talwar. He tried to give a blow to Ranjit Singh but he (Ranjit Singh) was saved by his mother. While rescuing him, she raised her hands, the petitioner caused injury on her hands. With the handle of the sword, another blow was given on her left parietal frontal region. Dr. Vidhur Bhalla (PW-4) proved the following injuries:- “1. Incised wound on the ventral aspect of right forearm wrist and Palmer aspect of hand extending upto the web space between the thumb and right index finger. Underlined muscles tenders and bones cut. Profuse bleeding present. Size of the wound was 18 cm x 6 cm. 2. Contusion over the left parietal frontal region of the scalp 7 cm x 8 cm. Reddish in colour fluctuant swelling present.” The Doctor opined that injury No.1 was grievous in nature. He also proved the medico-legal report (Exhibit PW-4/A) and the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries (Exhibit PW-4/B). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that injury No.1 does not fall within the mischief of Section 326 IPC because there was no x-ray examination. In support of his contention, reliance has been place on State of Punjab vs. Manga Singh 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 144. wherein, the accused were charged under Sections 324, 326 and 506 IPC. The trial Court convicted them under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted them under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved of the Criminal Revision No.1700 of 2005 4 judgment of acquittal under Section 326 IPC, the State of Punjab filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench observing that prosecution failed to prove that injury fell under Section 326 IPC because no x-ray examination was placed on record. The authority relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is of no avail because x-ray examination report (Exhibit PW-5/C) has been placed on record, whereby, injury No.1 was declared grievous and the same is supported by Dr. Vidhur Bhalla (PW-4). The injured received fracture of lower end of radius and fracture of trapezoid bone and the injuries were caused with sharp weapon, that is, kirpan and as such injury No.1 comes under the definition of Section 320 clause seventhly punishable under Section 326 IPC. 11. The sum and substance of the evidence led by the prosecution is that the petitioner caused two injuries as detailed above. Out of them, one was grievous. The injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon, that is, Kirpan and as such, this Court is of opinion that the Courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is dismissed. 13. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.2.2011. SN