Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.04.2010 Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision against the Order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner i.e. the complainant is son of Sarwan Singh. Sarwan Singh is his father. Iqbal Singh is his brother and Harjit Kaur is his real sister. The present case was filed by the petitioner against all the three i.e. his father, brother and sister. Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 2 The Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide Order dated 28.02.2009, sentenced the respondents as under :- Sarwan Singh : U/s 326 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- or in default further RI for 1½ months. U/s 324 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- or in default further RI for one month. U/s 323 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/- or in default further RI for one month. Iqbal Singh U/s 326 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- or in default further RI for 1½ months. U/s 324 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- or in default further RI for one month. U/s 323 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/- or in default further RI for one month. Satnam Singh U/s 326 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- or in default further RI for 1½ months. U/s 324 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- or in default further RI for one month. U/s 323 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/- or in default further RI for one month. Harjit Kaur U/s 326 IPC RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- or in default further RI for 1½ months. U/s 324 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- or in default further RI for one month. U/s 323 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.300/- or in default further RI for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal was filed by Harjit Kaur and others. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide Order and judgment dated 28.02.2009 acquitted Harjit Kaur and with respect to the remaining Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 3 accused-respondents, the appeal was dismissed except with the modification that they were convicted under Sections 323 and 324 IPC only and were ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of one year from today and to come and receive sentence if so called upon to do so by the Court during the said period of one year and the fine was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. It was ordered that entire of the amount of Rs.25,000/- each to be deposited by the appellants be paid to Ranjit Singh as compensation. Aggrieved with the same, the present revision has been filed against the Order of acquittal dated 28.02.2009 of his own sister-Harjit Kaur and the Order of conviction was modified to the extent that his father and brothers were convicted only under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and released on probation in the said offence. However, they were discharged under Section 326 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. The allegation against Harjit Kaur is that she held the complainant from his hair. The allegations have not been proved against her. She is residing with her husband in her matrimonial house. While accepting the appeal of Harjit Kaur and modifying the sentence of others, the Appellate Court held as under :- “17. PW1 Dr. Ashok Bhagat, Radiologist revealed of having found no fracture on any of the injury X-rayed by him. It is on the basis of some information from the Orthopedic Surgeon that PW5 declared injury No.9 on the person of Ranjit Singh as grievous. It is rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that neither any such information is led into evidence nor that Orthopedic Surgeon was examined at the trial whereby Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 4 defences of the stand prejudiced. They were deprived of their right to test veracity of the opinion of Orthopedic Surgeon by cross examining him. PW5 Dr. Inderjit Singh depended upon the report of Orthopedic Surgeon to declare injury No.9 as grievous in nature and without examining Orthopedic Surgeon the prosecution is not able to prove nature of injury No.9 to be grievous and as such it cannot be gainfully argued by the prosecution that injury No.9 falls within the ambit of Section 320 IPC punishable under Section 326 IPC and as such would fall within the ambit of Section 324 IPC by taking it to be a simple hurt caused with sharp edged weapon. Conviction of the accused under Section 326 IPC is thus set aside and it has to be taken as conviction under Section 324 IPC. 18. As far as accusations against Harjit Kaur are concerned they appear to be altogether exaggerated and the complainant has tried to press soft nerve of his father thereby. She is alleged to have caught hold of the complainant from his hair and facilitated his being attacked by remaining of the accused. Merely on the basis of such like oral accusations it is not safe to visit a female with findings of guilt. It is now widely accepted that when tampers run high there is a tendency to rope in as many persons from the other side as possible, especially women folk and she is also found to have been implicated in consonance with this trend. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case against her beyond all reasonable doubts. Her appeal is accordingly allowed and she is acquitted of the charges framed against her.” This is a revision petition. It has a limited scope of interference. Even otherwise, it has not been pointed out as to how the findings are incorrect and neither any law point has been raised to enable this Court to set aside the well reasoned Order passed by the Additional Crl. Rev. No.1368 of 2009 5 Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The petitioner and the accused are members of one family. The fight is between the petitioner and rest of his family members i.e. the father, brother and sister on the other side. They are first offenders. The benefit of probation granted is proper, just and fair and in accordance with law. No ground for interference is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.04.2010 JUDGE gurpreet