-1- Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 08, 2010. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and another ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and Makhan Singh alias Bhima , vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 5.9.2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, -2- Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. Talwandi Sabo, were convicted under Sections 323/ 324/ 325/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and maximum sentence awarded to the petitioners under Sections 325, 325 read with Section 34, 324, 324 read with Section 34, 323 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Code was rigorous imprisonment for one year besides total fine of Rs.800/-, for various offences, was imposed on each of the petitioner as the sentences awarded for these offences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners went in appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. Hence this revision petition by the petitioners. I have heard Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered at the instance of complainant Gurdev Singh, who along with his son Banta Singh and wife Jito, have received injuries. On 3.6.1999 at about 8 A.M, Gurdev Singh along with his son Banta Singh and wife Jito had gone to the house of appellant Sukhdev Singh to raise protest as to why they were calling bad names to them by saying that they had got removed their manure heap. Appellant Sukhdev Singh was standing in he street in front of his house. In the meantime, appellant Makhan Singh also reached there and remarked that Jito be taught a lesson for raising protest. Sukhdev Singh brought `Kassia' and `Dang' from his house. He handed over the `Dang' to -3- Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. Makhan Singh. Makhan Singh gave a `Dang' blow on the right upper arm of Jito. She raised hue and cry. Gurdev Singh and his son Banta Singh came there and tried to rescue Jito. Sukhdev Singh gave a `Kassia' blow on the right scapular region of Gurdev Singh. Makhan Singh gave a `Dang' blow on the left hand thumb of Banta Singh. Sukhdev Singh gave a `Kassia' blow on the right side of forehead of Gurdev Singh. `Dang' blow given by Makhan Singh landed on the head of Gurdev Singh. Makhan Singh gave a`Dang' blow to Banta Singh on his left leg. Gurdev Singh, Banta Singh and Jito raised an alarm. Several persons came there. Thereafter, the accused-appellants ran away from from the spot with their weapons. In this case, all the injured, namely, complainant Gurdev Singh (P.W.3), Jeeto (P.W.4) and Banta Singh (P.W.5) have fully supported the case of the prosecution. They being the injured witnessed are the stamped witnesses of the prosecution. Dr.Mukesh Gupta (P.W.1) had medico-legally examined all the injured. He had observed four injuries on the person of Gurdev Singh, out of which two were incised wounds caused by sharp weapon and two injuries, which were a lacerated wound on the outside of right eye brow and abrasion on the occipital region, were caused by blunt weapon. Two injuries i.e swelling over the dorsum of left thumb and swelling over the middle and outer side of left leg, were found on the person of Banta Singh. Three injuries were observed on the person of Jito which were reddish contusion on the middle and back of right upper arm, reddish contusion below the said injury and complaint of pain in abdomen. These injuries were blunt -4- Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. weapon injuries. Dr.Maninder Pal Singh (P.W.2) had radiologically examined injured Gurdev Singh and Banta Singh. X-ray examination of injured Banta Singh showed fracture of first metacarpal near base. In this case, the accused did not take any specific stand in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statement of Dr.Mukesh Gupta (P.W.1), who had also medico-legally examined Gurtej Kaur wife of appellant Sukhdev Singh, and argued that the complainant party was the aggressor. However, after giving a careful thought to the argument of the learned counsel, I do not find any merit therein. Dr. Mukesh Gupta had observed a reddish abrasion on the middle and outer side of left lower leg of Gurtej Kaur wife of appellant Sukhdev Singh besides observing pain in abdomen. There are nine injuries on the persons of complainant Gurdev Singh (P.W.3), Jeeto (P.W.4) and Banta Singh (P.W.5), which have been mentioned above and only one injury on the person of Gurtej Kaur wife of appellant Sukhdev Singh. Without dilating any further on the issue, non-presence of even a single injury on the persons of the appellants shows that the complainant party had not attacked the accused party. It is not the case of the defence that Gurtej Kaur wife of appellant Sukhdev Singh had caused injuries to the complainant party and she received an injury in self defence. It were the appellants who had caused injuries to complainant Gurdev Singh (P.W.3), Jeeto (P.W.4) and Banta Singh (P.W.5). -5- Criminal Revision No.339 of 2003. The question of right of private defence of body or property did not arise in this case. The occurrence had taken place in the street. From the evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the complainant party had gone to the house of appellant Sukhdev Singh in order to assault the accused party. If they had gone with the intention of assaulting the accused party, then they could have caused injuries on the persons of the accused. The injuries on the persons of Gurdev Singh (P.W.3), Jeeto (P.W.4) and Banta Singh (P.W.5), described above, show that the complainant party was not the aggressor. The attack was, in fact, opened by the accused. As such, the petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 08, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE