Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1037 of 2003 Date of decision:30.11.2010 Surjit Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab. … JORA SINGH, J. This criminal revision was preferred by Surjit Singh to challenge the judgment dated 2.5.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Ropar, in Crl. Appeal No. 22 of 28.5.2001, arising out of FIR No.108 dated 20.6.1999 under Sections 323/326/34 IPC, PS Ropar. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment dated 5.5.2001 was dismissed. Vide judgment dated 5.5.2001 passed by CJM, Ropar, petitioner was convicted under Sections 326/323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 326 IPC and to undergo RI for four months under Section 323 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Santokh Singh, complainant, was working as an agriculturist. Surjit Singh, petitioner, was his brother but he (Surjit Singh) wanted to take possession of the land forcibly which fell to Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 2 the share of Santokh Singh. On 19.6.1999 at about 9.45 AM, Santokh Singh with his wife Gurmit Kaur and son Sarabjit Singh was returning from their fields after measurement of the land which fell to their share. There was heavy rain, then complainant started running and took shelter in his house. Suddenly, Sarabjit Singh came running and told the complainant that Gurmit Kaur was caught hold by the family members of Surjit Singh and they were beating her. Accused had also caused injuries to him (Sarabjit Singh). Then complainant had gone to the cattle shed and found Surjit Singh armed with daat. Surjit Singh gave blow on the left arm of Gurmit Kaur. 3/4 more blows were given to Gurmit Kaur. Raula was raised, which attracted Balwant Singh and Girdhari Singh, who rescued the complainant party from the accused. Gurmit Kaur was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ropar, where she was medico legally examined. Intimation was given to the concerned police station. On receipt of information, ASI Jatinder Pal Singh had gone to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Opinion was sought from the doctor as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not. Injured was declared unfit to make statement. On 20.6.1999, again IO had gone to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Doctor was requested to report as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not. Injured was declared unfit to make statement. In the evening again IO had gone to civil Hospital, Ropar, to record the statement of the injured. Then Santokh Singh, husband of the injured, met the IO. Statement of Santokh Singh was recorded, which was thumb marked in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, statement of Santokh Singh was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Later on, supplementary statement of complainant was also recorded. Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 3 IO had gone to the spot and after inspection, prepared rough site plan with its correct marginal notes. Injury No.1 kept under observation was declared grievous in nature. Then offence under Section 326 IPC was added. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charged under Sections 326/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1 Dr. S.P.Jakhu stated that he had x-rayed the injuries on the person of Gurmit Kaur. In case of injury No.1, fracture was noticed. Ex.PA is the x-ray report. PW2 Santokh Singh is the complainant and stated that in his presence, accused had caused injuries to Gurmit Kaur. Gurmit Kaur appeared as PW5 and stated that while returning from their fields, then accused had caused injuries to her. PW3 Dharam Chand has also supported the versions of Santokh Singh and Gurmit Kaur. PW4 Dr. Darshan Singh stated that on 19.6.1999, he had medico legally examined Gurmit Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:- “1. An incised wound of about 4 x 1-1/2 cm in diameter on the back of the left forearm, just 5 cm above the left wrist joint. Fresh bleeding was there. Swelling and tenderness were positive. X-ray was advised. Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 4 2. Lacerated wound of about 1 x 1 cm in diameter just one finger above the lip. Needle can be passed upto the oral cavity. 3. Haematoma on the left frontal side of skull just 2-1/2 finger above the left eye brow. There was lacerated wound of about 1/2 x ¼ cm overlying the haematoma. Adv. X-ray skull. 4. Swelling below the left eye just lateral to the left alar region. There was lacerated wound overlying the swelling of about 1-1/2 x 1 cm in diameter. Fresh bleeding was there. Adv. X-ray.” PW6 ASI Jatinder Pal Singh is the Investigating Officer. After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. In defence, DW1 Dalip Singh stated that no occurrence took place. In fact, Gurmit Kaur received injuries by fall on barbed wire due to heavy rain. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. After arguing for some time, when learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that injured is the wife of real brother of the Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 5 petitioner. Occurrence is dated 19.6.1999. Only one injury on the non-vital part was found to be grievous in nature. At the time of occurrence, petitioner was 52 years' old and at present, he is about 63 years' old. Petitioner has already undergone near about five months out of actual sentence of two years. Argued that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Requested to take lenient view qua sentence. Learned State counsel argued that injured along with her husband and son was returning from their fields. On the way, petitioner armed with daat gave blows to the injured. Occurrence was witnessed by the complainant, his son and two brothers, namely, Balwant Singh and Girdhari Singh. Defence version of the petitioner was that Gurmit Kaur received injuries by fall against barbed wire but no question to the doctor that injury No.1 was possible by fall against barbed wire. There was dispute amongst the parties regarding partition of land. Petitioner was intending to take possession of land forcibly which fell to the share of complainant party. In case, there was no previous enmity amongst the parties, then there was no idea to suffer grievous injury simply to implicate the petitioner. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the impugned judgment on the basis of conviction and only requested to take lenient view but even then, I want to scrutinize the evidence on the file as to whether occurrence had taken place as per prosecution story or defence version seems to be more probable. Admittedly, injured is the wife of real brother of the petitioner. There was dispute amongst the parties regarding partition of land. According to the story, complainant party was in possession of land, which Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 6 fell to their share but petitioner was intending to take possession forcibly of the land which fell to the share of complainant party. Injured while appearing in Court, then on oath stated that while returning from their fields, petitioner armed with daat gave blows to her. Complainant and one of the eye witnesses have also supported the version of Gurmit Kaur. Gurmit Kaur was medico legally examined by the doctor and four injuries were noticed on her person. Injury No.1 was on the left arm and was found to be grievous in nature. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries were possible by fall against barbed wire. When injuries were not possible by fall against barbed wire, then trial Court as well as first Appellate Court rightly opined that injuries were caused by the petitioner. As discussed earlier, petitioner is related to the injured and if there was no previous enmity amongst the parties, then there was no idea to suffer grievous injury simply to implicate the petitioner. Statements of injured and eye witnesses, coupled with statement of doctor show that the petitioner had caused injuries to Gurmit Kaur as per prosecution story. No reason to differ with the first Appellate Court. Undisputedly, petitioner was 52 years' old at the time of occurrence. Petitioner is the first offender and is related to the complainant party. Injury found to be grievous in nature was not on the vital part. Petitioner has already undergone near about five months out of actual sentence. Petitioner is to become hard criminal if again sent to jail. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Instead of directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment as ordered by Crl.Revision No.1037 of 2003 7 the trial Court, he is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (about five months). Petitioner is further directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- more as fine within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured, failing which, revision would stand dismissed automatically. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed with modification qua sentence. 30.11.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE