IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1525 of 2005 Date of decision: October 29, 2010 Charna Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Criminal Revision No.1605 of 2005 Binder Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.1525 of 2005. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Revision No.1605 of 2005. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of two connection revision petition bearing Nos.1525 and 1605 of 2005, having arisen out of the judgment dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 18.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, convicting and sentencing them as under :- Charna Singh & Mewa Singh U/s 326 & 326/34 : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. U/s 324/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each. Binder Singh U/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- U/s 326/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Criminal Revision No. 1525 of 2005 & Criminal Revision No. 1605 of 2005 -2- All the accused were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 IPC. The brief narration of the events runs as under :- “There was a dispute about a common wall between Mehar Singh and Charna Singh. On 2.10.1998, Mehar Singh went to Gurdeep Singh father of Lakhwinder Singh with a request that he should settle the dispute between them regarding the common wall. Accordingly, Lakhwinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Dalip Kaur accompanied by Mehar Singh came out of the house to go to the house of Binder Singh. However, Binder Singh, Charna Singh and Mewa Singh were found present in the street. Gurdeep Singh advised Binder Singh and Charna Singh to convene a Panchayat to settle the dispute. However, Charna Singh started abusing Gurdeep Singh. The latter prevented him from doing so then Charna Singh and Mewa Singh brought kirpan and gandasa respectively from their house. Mewa Singh exhorted them to catch the complainant party. There upon, Binder Singh gave kirpan blow on the person of Lakhwinder Singh which landed on his finger. The appellant Mewa Singh started hurling brick bats. The brick bat hit Lakhwinder Singh on the backside of his neck. When Mehar Singh came at his rescue, thereupon, Charna Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its reverse side on the right leg of Mehar Singh. When Dalip Kaur intervened, Mewa Singh hurled a brick bat upon her which hit on her nose and cheek. Thereafter, Charna Singh inflicted gandasa blow on the person of Dalip Kaur which landed on her upper lip from the sharp edged side. Binder Singh also inflicted kirpan blow on the left shoulder of Dalip Kaur. However, Gurdeep Singh had retraced out of fear. The injured raised hue and cry, at this the accused fled away from the scene.” On the basis of the aforesaid statement Ex.PO, formal FIR Ex.PO/3 was recorded. The matter was investigated, recoveries of the weapons were effected and completion of the investigation was followed by Criminal Revision No. 1525 of 2005 & Criminal Revision No. 1605 of 2005 -3- a report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused were charged under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Dr. Sohan Lal (PW1), Lakhwinder Singh (PW2), Dalip Kaur (PW3), Mehar Singh (PW4) and ASI Kulwant Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. However, they did not opt to lead any evidence in defence. On perusal of the entire evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced them accordingly. The appeal filed by them was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. As usual, without touching any law point, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, no independent witness was examined; the injuries on the person of Dalip Kaur could be self suffered, therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC was not made out; the motive does not stand proved; and the medical evidence does not fits in with the ocular version. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it may be observed that the occurrence in this case took place on 2.10.1998 at 7.30 p.m. wherein Dalip Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Mehar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were injured. They were admitted in the hospital within three hours. On receipt of the ruqa from the doctor during night, the Investigating Officer went to the hospital in the morning and recorded the statement of Lakhwinder Singh which was completed at 9.30 a.m. Since four persons were injured, therefore, first anxiety of the persons was to take care of the injured and to provide them medical aid than to run to the police station. Thus, the delay in lodging the FIR stands satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, the minor delay in lodging the FIR pales into insignificance if there is direct evidence supporting the prosecution case and when there was no reason for the witnesses to rope the innocent persons. The next contention of Mr. Sidhu that the medical evidence does not fits in with the ocular version, is also of no consequence. The Criminal Revision No. 1525 of 2005 & Criminal Revision No. 1605 of 2005 -4- allegations against the accused regarding causing injuries has been duly corroborated by the injured witnesses. It has come in evidence of Lakhwinder Singh (PW2) and Dalip Kaur (PW3) that the appellant Mewa Singh had pelted brick bats upon the complainant party and when Dalip Kaur intervened Mewa Singh directed brick bats towards her which hit her nose and cheek. The accused Charna Singh inflicted gandasa blow which fell on the upper lip of Dalip Kaur resulting into dislocation of her two teeth. The other injured witness have also made ocular version regarding the injuries which stand corroborated by the medical evidence. It has been next contended that offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out. In this regard, I need to appreciate the statement of Dr. Sohan Lal (PW1) in this regard. He, in his statement has stated that two teeth of Dalip Kaur were found to have been separated from their roots and they could be moved either side. This takes me to make a reference of Section 320 IPC. Clause 7th of the said section refers to “fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth”. In this regard, since two teeth of Dalip Kaur had been dislocated, as such, offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. In order to make sure that dislocation may not be self-suffered, I have gone through the statement of Dr. Sohan Lal (PW1) who has given the corresponding injuries in the following manner. “The upper lip of the patient was swollen and was more from right side. There is an incised wound below the upper lip on the inner side. It is measuring about 2 cms x 5 cms in size. Underlying two teeth are separated from the roots and they were movable from back to front and side to side. There is fresh bleeding present in these teeth and the underlying gums are swollen and tender.” Thus, taking stock of his statement, the injuries certainly cannot be self suffered. As regards the application of Section 34 IPC, all the three accused were present in the street. They initiated the quarrel. They went to their house and brought kirpan and gandasa respectively from their house and on the exhortation made by Mewa Singh, they attacked the injured causing injuries to four persons. Mewa Singh had pelted brick bats, Criminal Revision No. 1525 of 2005 & Criminal Revision No. 1605 of 2005 -5- therefore, all the constituents to prove the meeting of minds amongst the accused and their participation in the commission of the crime are found present. As such, the accused were rightly convicted under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. No other argument has been raised. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, a prayer has been made to take a lenient view in the matter. Keeping in view the longevity of the trial, I find it fit case where sentence could be reduced to some extent. In the net result, these revision petitions are dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 1- ½ years under Section 326 and 326/34 IPC against the accused persons without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, sentence awarded to them qua the other offences shall remain intact. October 29, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge