Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) Decided on : April 07, 2010 Buta Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal of the accused – petitioners against the judgment dated 24.7.1995 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, convicting and sentencing the accused as under:- Jaswant Singh @ Jassa @ Jasbir Singh under Section 326 IPC, whereas, Buta Singh @ Manga, Gulzar Singh and Amar Singh under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/-, each. Gulzar Singh u/s 324 read with S.34 IPC, whereas, the remaining three accused u/s 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Gulzar Singh u/s 323 IPC, whereas, the remaining three accused u/s 323 read with S.34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Factual matrix of the case is that on 31.12.1993 at about 5.00 Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) [2] PM, when Baldev Singh – complainant (herein referred as `the complainant') along with his brother was unloading cotton seeds from the tractor-trolley; his father and his elder brother Ram Singh @ Nishan Singh were taking tea while sitting inside the room. In the meantime, Gulzar Singh armed with `dang', Buta Singh, Jaswant Singh and Amar Singh armed with `gandasis' came in front of the house of the complainant. Gulzar Singh exhorted to teach them a lesson for constructing a ridge (boundary) unauthorisedly. Buta Singh inflicted a gandasi blow hitting on the forehead of the complainant, as a result of which he fell down; Jasbir Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on his left wrist; Amar Singh inflicted a gandasi blow near the left ear, while Gulzar Singh inflicted a gandasi blow hitting the complainant on his right shoulder. In the meantime, his brother Raj Singh came forward to rescue him. Then, accused Buta Singh and Jaswant Singh also gave injuries to Raj Singh also. On raising hue and cry by the complainant, Ram Singh - his brother, his father and one Sajjan Singh came at their rescue. The motive behind this occurrence is that the complainant party had some dispute with the accused party. After the occurrence, the injured were shifted to the hospital, where, ASI Baldev Singh recorded the statement of the complainant on 1.1.1994, on the basis of which the formal FIR was registered on 13.1.1994. The case was investigated and the challan was presented. On finding a prima facie case under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) [3] In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Sukhwinder Singh (PW1), Naldev Singh (PW2), Raj Singh (PW3) and ASI Baldev Singh (PW4). While examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused set up a cross-version and to prove the same examined Dr.Sham Lal Gupta (DW1), Banta Singh (DW2), Dial Singh (DW3) and Amar Singh (DW4). Dr.Sham Lal Gupta while appearing in the witness box disclosed that he had examined Buta Singh and found four injuries on his person. After X-ray examination, one injury was found grievous in nature. He further stated that he had also examined Gulzar Singh on 31.1.1994 and found three injuries on his person, which were subjected to X-ray examination. On X-ray examination, he declared injury No.1 and 2 simple in nature and observed injury No.3 as grievous. However, on appreciation of the evidence, the accused were held guilty, convicted and sentenced as referred to above. Their appeal was also dismissed. As regards the first contention with regard to delay in lodging the First Information Report - Though, the FIR was recorded after 13 days, yet the recording of the statement of the complainant by ASI Baldev Singh was prompt in nature. The occurrence had taken place on 31.12.1993 at 5.00 PM; the injured were medico legally examined at 10.00 PM on the same day; the statement of the complainant was recorded on 1.1.1994. The injuries were X-rayed on 7.1.1994. The FIR is in quite consonance with the version of the complainant. It is not the fault of the complainant party that the police did not record an FIR and it was to the wisdom of the Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) [4] Investigating Officer and the fault on his part cannot be shifted on the shoulders of the complainant. There was no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. Even according to the defence version, the occurrence stands admitted, though they have described the same in a different manner. The injuries on the persons of accused Buta Singh and Jaswant Singh cannot be said to have been the result of the same occurrence. No such suggestion has been given that the occurrence had taken place in which the accused had caused injuries to the complainant party. The accused have failed to establish if the occurrence was the result of a sudden fight as pleaded by them. Had the accused actually suffered injuries during the same occurrence, they would have got themselves immediately checked up. Had the case been of such nature, then the matter should have been brought to the notice of the police immediately. The accused should have approached the police or the higher authorities informing about the high-handedness of the complainant party. Even no suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer that there was a sudden fight or the accused caused the injuries in self-defence. So, the plea of self-defence or sudden fight cannot be sustained. Thus, it could be safely concluded that sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused persons. Now, coming to the other argument with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993; Accused Gulzar Singh, who was aged about 55 years at that time, must be an old man of 70 years now; no such antecedents of the Criminal Revision No.744 of 1997(O&M) [5] accused have been brought on record so as to dub them as habitual offenders; the accused and the complainant are the neighbourers; the accused have already suffered a lot of agony due to the protracted proceedings pending in the courts for the last about 17 years. The accused Amar Singh and Gulzar Singh have undergone about 1½ months of sentence, whereas, accused Jaswant Singh and Buta Singh have undergone more than 3 months of the sentence and that they have also offered to compensate the injured, therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of things, if the petitioners are sent to jail at this stage, however, they could be burdened with compensation. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, all the four petitioners would pay Rs.5000/-, each, to the two injured, namely; Raj Singh and Baldev Singh, who will share the said compensation equally. In case of failure of the petitioner/s to pay the compensation within three months from today, this petition shall be rendered as dismissed without any modification in the sentence qua him/them, as the case may be. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for compliance. April 07, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE