Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Baldev Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Baldev Singh son of Roop Singh was named as accused in case FIR No. 206 dated 11.8.1999 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda, under Sections 323 & 325 IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 325 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of rs.200/- under Section 323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. In Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 2 the appeal, conviction was maintained, however, sentence under Section 325 IPC was reduced from one year to nine months. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 6.8.1999 at about 11.00 A.M. FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Rajinder Kaur. She stated that she was resident of Baba Farid Nagar and was tenant in the house of Makhan Singh. She was residing in that house along with her husband and her daughter Nisha. On the day of occurrence, while she was knitting sweater, her husband came to the house. She told him to bring household goods from the market. Upon this, her husband refused to bring the household articles and told her that she should bring the same from the house of her parents. The complainant objected to this. Then her husband took one Ghotna (wooden log) from the kitchen and gave a blow with the same on the left shoulder and right wrist of the complainant. On alarm raised by the complainant, her husband again gave a Ghotna blow which hit on the right hand. Thereafter, again injuries were caused to the complainant. She suffered injuries on lower part of her back, right shoulder, and left knee. The neighbourers were attracted to the spot and they had witnessed the occurrence. Rajinder Kaur was medicolegally examined. She had suffered ten injuries on her body. From X-ray, a fracture of shaft of the ulna of the left forearm and fracture of head on fifth metacarpal of right hand was found. The report of Radiologist has been proved as Ex.PB. The trial Court relied upon testimony of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur and found petitioner guilty of offence. The arguments raised before the trial Court that Paramjit Singh and Chhinderpal Kaur, who were cited as Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 3 witnesses of the occurrence by the prosecution have been given up as won over, therefore testimony of injured PW.1 Rajinder Kaur be rejected as she is a solitary witness and no corroboration is coming to her testimony from any other witnesses was not accepted. The trial Court held as under:- “...I would fully rely upon the sole testimony of the complainant herself who has taken consistent and reliable stand throughout. Despite search and lengthy cross-examination, counsel for the accused could not elicit anything worthwhile out of cross- examination”. The Court further held that the fact that PW.1 Rajinder Kaur received injuries at the hands of petitioner Baldev Singh stand corroborated from the medical evidence. Therefore, the Court took into consideration deposition of PW.3 Dr. S.S. Romana, of Civil Hospital, Bathinda who medicolegally examined PW.1 Rajinder Kaur. The Court further relied upon testimony of PW.4 Dr. H.L. Garg, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The Appellate Court rejected the arguments raised by the defence regarding delay in lodging of FIR. The Appellate Court noticed the fact that the occurrence took place on 6.8.1999 and the FIR Ex.PW.6/G was recorded on 11.8.1999. Further, the Appellate Court held that the occurrence took place on 6.8.1999 at 11.00 A.M., PW.1 Rajinder Kaur was admitted on the same day in the Civil Hospital at 12.35 Noon and she had suffered ten injuries by blunt weapon. The probable period of the injuries was within six hours. PW.6 Ram Pal, Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 4 Assistant Sub Inspector, visited Civil Hospital, Bathinda and filed an application Ex.PW.6/A seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur, injured, to make statement. She was declared unfit to make statement at 2.10 P.M. vide opinion Ex.PW.6/B. Thereafter, another opinion was sought and finally PW.1 Rajinder Kaur was found fit to make statement on 7.8.1999 at 2.10 P.M. Vide Ex.PW.6/D. Thereafter, he statement Ex.PA was recorded. The Appellate Court held that since injuries caused were by blunt weapon and Radiologist had not opined at that moment injuries to be grievous, therefore, at that relevant time offence fell under Section 323 IPC which is non-cognizable and hence statement Ex.PA was recorded in Daily Diary Report and, thereafter, case in the form of FIR was registered. The Appellate Court further held that the Court always insist upon quality of evidence, and not quantity of evidence. The Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court that deposition of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur aspire confidence and is trustworthy. I have heard Mr. D.S.Gurna, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, representing State of Punjab. Mr. Gurna has raised only two arguments before me that there was delay in lodging of the FIR, therefore, statement of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur should not be accepted especially when after the occurrence, PW.1 Rajinder Kaur's matrimonial relations with petitioner Baldev Singh stood soured and ended in divorce. Therefore, she had a motive to falsely implicate petitioner. Secondly, it was stated that both the Courts below should not have placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW.1 Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 5 Rajinder Kaur as no other witness has come forward to support the version narrated in the Court by PW.1 Rajinder Kaur. Both the arguments raised are liable to be rejected. It is a case of wife-bashing. Occurrence had taken place in the matrimonial home where PW.1 Rajinder Kaur was residing along with her husband- petitioner. No independent witness was expected to be present. Even otherwise, Paramjit Singh and his wife Chhinder Pal Kaur were given up as won over as they had relations with the petitioners. Furthermore, two Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur. This Court being revisional Curt cannot re- appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. This Court shall refrain from substituting its opinion regarding the quality of evidence as two Courts below have pronounced testimony of PW.1 Rajinder Kaur worth credence. The delay has been well-explained and taken into consideration by the Appellate Court. Mr.Gurna submitted that petitioner and PW.1 Rajinder Kaur have obtained divorce and are residing separately. He further stated that occurrence in the present case had taken place in August 1999. About ten years are going to elapse, therefore, the petitioner has suffered protracted trial and his sentence be reduced to already undergone. The appeal of the petitioner was decided on 7.11.2003. He was taken into custody and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 20.11.2003. The petitioner had undergone only for 13 days as offence under Section 325 IPC is bailable. I am of the view that prayer of counsel for the petitioner to reduce the sentence of petitioner to already undergone cannot be accepted as PW.1 Rajinder Kaur had suffered ten Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2003 6 injuries, out of which two were fractures. She had suffered a fracture of shaft of the ulna of left forearm and fracture of head of fifth metacarpal on the right hand. The two grievous injuries were on the finger and near the wrist. This Court is also conscious that husband had caused injuries to the wife. Taking into consideration these aggravating circumstances, I am of the view that protracted trial of ten years should also be considered as a mitigating circumstance. To draw the balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of petitioner is reduced from nine months to six months. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 23, 2009 “DK”