IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2018 of 2005 Date of decision: December 23, 2010 Harbans Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Initially five accused namely Harbans Singh, Gurmail Singh, Harjinder Singh, Jaspal Singh alias Palli and Joginder Singh were prosecuted for allegedly causing simple as well as grievous injuries to the complainant-injured Jalour Singh. The trial court while acquitting Jaspal Singh alias Palli and Joginder Singh of the charges, convicted Gurmail Singh, Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh under Sections 323/326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as under : Gurmail Singh U/s 326 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Harbans Singh U/s 326/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. U/s 323 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Harjinder Singh U/s 326/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Criminal Revision No. 2018 of 2005 -2- *** Their appeal was dismissed with modification in the sentence by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.9.2005. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 21.2.1999 at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant Jalour Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with his son and wife was present in his house. Accused Harbans Singh armed with gandasa, Gurmail Singh armed with kirpan, Palli and Harjinder Singh empty handed came in front of his house. Harjinder Singh exhorted to teach lesson for taking possession of the land. The complainant, his son and wife came running in the street. Gurmail Singh inflicted a kirpan blow towards the complainant but he (complainant) tried to prevent with the help of dang and it struck on the backside of his left hand. Harbans Singh inflicted gandasa blow hitting on the forehead above left eye. Accused Palli, Harjinder Singh and Joginder Singh whose house is adjoining to his house started hurling brickbats from the side of the house of Joginder Singh. They raised alarm “marditta, marditta”, at which all the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The injured was got admitted in the hospital for medical examination. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. The accused were arrested. During interrogation accused Gurmail Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW6/M regarding the concealment of kirpan by him, pursuant to which kirpan was got recovered. Similarly, Harbans Singh accused had also suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PW6/N regarding concealment of gandasa and pursuant to that statement, he got recovered the gandasa. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 148/149/326/323 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Jalour Singh complainant (PW1), Jagmohan Singh (PW2), Dr. R.K. Goel (PW3), Dr. S.K. Jagga (PW4), Rupinder Singh (PW5), ASI Mohar Singh (PW6), SI Sarabjit Singh (PW7) and Iqbal Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Hira Singh Criminal Revision No. 2018 of 2005 -3- *** (DW1). The trial resulted into conviction of Harbans Singh, Gurmail Singh and Harjinder Singh, whereas, accused Joginder Singh and Jaspal Singh alias Palli were acquitted of the charges. Their appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. On scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that Dr. S.K. Jagga (PW4) who had examined the complainant found the following injuries on his person :- 1. A lacerated wound 2 cms x 1 cm on the left side of forehead just near the left eye brow and 3 cms from the mid line. 2. Incised wound 4 cms x ½ cm on the dorsal aspect of left hand starting 1 cm above the base of middle finger going towards the left index finger on its dorsal aspect at the middle of proximal phalanx. Underlying bone partly exposed. Bleeding present.” He proved the MLR E.PW4/A and declared the injury No.2 as grievous in nature. Now it would be essential to appreciate the evidence of Dr. R.K. Goel (PW2) who x-rayed the injured Jalour Singh. He x-rayed both the injuries and found that there was no fracture on the skull and found fracture of head of third metacarpal bone of the left hand. At the same time, Dr. S.K. Jagga (PW4), during cross examination, has admitted that the possibility of the injury No.2 on the person of the complainant by friendly hands could not be ruled out. Now coming to the ocular version, the prosecution has examined Jalour Singh complainant (PW1), Jagmohan Singh (PW2). He states that Gurmail Singh was holding a kirpan. He inflicted injury with kirpan on his middle finger as well as the little finger and Harbans Singh inflicted gandasa blow on the left side of his forehead above the eye. To the contrary, Jagmohan Singh (PW2) has stated that Gurmail Singh hurled the kirpan blow which hit on the posterior side of the left hand. He does not state if kirpan blow hit the finger only. The occurrence in this case took Criminal Revision No. 2018 of 2005 -4- *** place on 21.2.1999 at 7.00 p.m. The FIR in this case was recorded on the statement of Jalour Singh complainant at 9.20 a.m. on 22.2.1999. As such, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which stands unexplained. The prosecution version appears to be concocted version involving five accused persons for two injuries. The complainant appears to have got benefit of delay in lodging the FIR obviously for concocting the prosecution version and involving as many as five persons. As such, the delay in the instant case is fatal to the prosecution version. Though Jagmohan Singh and Tej Kaur were present at the spot but they did not make any effort to intervene in the feud. Thus it appears that their presence is also doubtful. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, both the courts below appear to have ignored the aforesaid aspects of the case, rendering the judgment as invalid warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned judgment, acquit the accused of the charges framed against them and direct that they be set at liberty forthwith. Their bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. Fine, if any paid by them, be refunded. December 23, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge