In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1738 of 2001 Date of decision: February 13, 2009 Karam Chand and others ... Petitioners Vs. Preeto and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Petitioners Karam Chand son of Nama Ram; Jagdish Ram alias Banti son of Chanan Ram; Amarjit Singh @ Dhanna son of Gehya Ram; Inderjit @ Kala son of Chanan Ram and Narinder @ Lovely son of Jeet Ram, were tried and convicted vide judgment dated 30.9.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in a complaint filed under Sections 326, 324, 323, 452, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced as under :- Amarjit Singh U/s 326 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 324 & 452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. U/s 323/149 & 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay of Rs.200/- on each count. Karam Chand U/s 326/149 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 324/149 & 452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. Crl. Revision No. 1738 of 2001 -2- *** U/s 323/149 & 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay of Rs.200/- on each count. Jagdish U/s 326/149 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 324/149 &452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. U/s 323 & 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay of Rs.200/- on each count. Inderjit U/s 326/149 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 324/149 & 452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. U/s 323 & 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay of Rs.200/- on each count. Narinder U/s 326/149 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 324/149 &452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. U/s 323/149 & 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay of Rs.200/- on each count. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Crl. Revision No. 1738 of 2001 -3- *** In nutshell, the facts as culled out from the complaint filed by the complainant-Preeto are that on 2.2.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., when she was present in her plot, all the accused-petitioners (herein after referred as 'the petitioner') came armed; entered into her plot and gave her filthy abuses. Thereafter, Amarjit Singh @ Dhanna gave a takua blow hitting on her little finger of left hand. He again gave a blow on her head. Jagdish Ram @ Banti gave thrust wise dang blow on her chest, whereas, Inderjit Singh @ Kala gave blow from reverse side of takua on her left shoulder. Resultantly, she fell down. In the meanwhile, Banso came there. Amarjit Singh @ Dhanna inflicted another blow from reverse side of takua on her wrist. Jagdish @ Banti inflicted blow on her left knee, whereas, Karam Chand inflicted dang blow on her right knee. Thereafter, Inderjit @ Kala pushed out Banso and Preeto from the said plot and then fled away from the spot. The police registered a case against the accused in Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar under Section 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC, but did not arrest and proceeded against them, therefore, the present complaint was filed. On trial the accused were convicted and sentenced accordingly. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the injury on the little finger does not fall within the definition of “grievous” in nature, therefore, the offence, if any, for which the accused could be framed is Section 324 IPC. Before, I proceed to decide the question, it would be essential to reproduce the medical evidence. Dr. Gurpal Singh (PW2), who examined Preeto on 2.2.1996 at about 5.50 p.m. Described the injuries on her person as under :- “1. Incised wound 4 cms x 0.5 cm on the anterior posterio aspect of little finger of left hand in its middle, bone deep underlying bone cut, fresh bleeding present. 2. Incised wound 3.5 cms x 0.75 cm on the middle of skull. Bone deep fresh blood present. Advised x-ray skull AP lateral view. Crl. Revision No. 1738 of 2001 -4- *** 3. Complains of pain in the chest. Tenderness present. Advised x-ray test AP lateral view. 4. Complains of pain in the left shoulder joint. He also examined Banso on the same day at 6.20 p.m. and found the following injuries on her person: “1. An abrasion 1.5 cms x 1 cm on the posterior lateral aspect of right forearm. 1.5 cm above the right wrist joint. Swelling around the abrasion was present. Tenderness present. Abrasion reddish brown in colour. Advised x-ray right fore arm with wrist joint. AP lateral view. 2. Tenderness present on both knee joints.” Though, Dr. Gurpal Singh (PW2) has declared the injury No.1, on the little finger of Preeto, as grievous in nature as to entail conviction of the accused under Section 326 IPC, yet, the judgments of both the courts below reveal that the source from which he reached the conclusion has not been put forth. The injury appears to be self-suffered. It is the sole injury on the finger of the left hand that too in the interior posterio medial aspect. He had described it to be bone deep and underlying bone was cut. The injury was neither subjected to x-ray nor he has described the extent of the cut. He has not specifically stated if there was a fracture on the little finger. Possibility of this injury being self-suffered also cannot be ruled out for the reason that there is no injury on the adjoining fingers. If a blow is given on the hand, including little finger, then blow must have some impact on the adjoining fingers. Thus, some exaggerations appear to have been made in the case so as to make the offence graver one, as such, it would not be safe to upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC. However, no meaningful arguments have been raised for assailing the conviction of the accused under Sections 324, 452, 323, 148. 149 IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the accused qua these offences is ordered to be maintained. An abortive-bid has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they being the first offenders are entitled to benefit of probation. Crl. Revision No. 1738 of 2001 -5- *** Having scrutinized the records, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996 and they suffered a lot due to the agony of the protracted trial. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. Nothing such has been brought on record as to enable this court to conclude that they are the habitual offenders. Resultantly, ends of justice would be met if the benefit of probation is extended to them. Consequently, I partly allow the petition, acquit the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC and their conviction for the remaining offences is maintained. However, the sentence is modified to the extent that they are released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they shall be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. Copy of the judgment be forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar for compliance. February 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge