C.R.R. No.2145 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.2145 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2011 Kala Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, D.A.G., Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Courts below convicting the petitioners under Sections 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC in case F.I.R. No.72 dated 08.11.1998 registered at P.S. Dialpura. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that when the complainant was crossing the passage outside his house alongwith C.R.R. No.2145 of 2002 (O&M) -2- his wife his brothers viz. the petitioners attacked him and inflicted injuries between 5 to 6 P.M. on 06.11.1998. The injured were taken to the hospital next morning at about 9.40 A.M. where the following injuries were noticed:- 1. “Swelling right hand, extensor surface. No scar mark clinically appeared to be no fracture. Movements of wrist & metacarpophallangeal joints and some what restricted due to selling. Advise X-ray. 2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm 1 acerated wound skin deep with surrounding 1 cm abrasion with underlying in duration over central part of occipital area near lamboid suture. Advise X-ray. 3. 3 x 0.5 cm incised wound skin deep 6 cm medial to left nipple vertically downward. 4. 1 x 0.5 cm abrasion over medial surface of proximal interphallangeal joint of left index finger.” Initially Section 325 Cr.P.C. was not added but subsequently on 17.11.1998 the injured got an x-ray which showed that there was a fracture in the bone and Section 325 Cr.P.C. was also added. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the present case there was a delay of about 16 hours in taking the injured to the hospital. Thereafter also, the F.I.R. was lodged only on 08.11.1998 i.e. after two days of occurrence. He further pointed towards x-ray report which was taken place after 11 days of the occurrence which had shown a fracture. He further argued that there is no evidence to link the injury attributed to the C.R.R. No.2145 of 2002 (O&M) -3- petitioners with the x-ray. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, delay in going to the hospital and then in lodging the F.I.R. clearly reveals that petitioners are innocent. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab however countered by arguing that as regards the delay in going to the hospital it cannot be lost sight of that the occurrence had taken place in the evening and, since the injuries were not life threatening, no exception could be taken to the fact that the injured went to the hospital only on the next day. As regards the argument that the fracture has not been linked with the injuries attributed to the petitioners, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has alleged that there is no other allegation that the injured person suffered from any other injury. In my opinion, the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab is not so attractive. As has been put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners it was for the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. As per learned counsel for the petitioners due to delay in conducting x-ray, injuries attributed to the petitioners cannot be linked with the injuries shown in x-ray report. In my considered opinion, it is for the prosecution to prove that the injured suffered no other injury in the course of those 11-12 days. In the circumstances, Section 325 is not made out. However, as regards the occurrence and the injuries attributed to the petitioners learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to C.R.R. No.2145 of 2002 (O&M) -4- shake the credibility of the injured witness and the eye witness. In the circumstances, the occurrence has to be held to be proved. As regards the delay in lodging the F.I.R. the learned trial Court has noticed that Investigating Officer went to the hospital namely Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 07.11.1998 but the injured was declared not fit to make a statement and that was the reason the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.11.1998. Since Section 325 Cr.P.C. has not been found to be maintainable the question of the sentence to be awarded to the petitioners under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC arises. In my opinion it would be in the interest of justice that if the petitioners collectively pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, their sentence will be reduced to that which they had already undergone. In case the petitioners do not pay the compensation on or before 05.05.2011 to the complainant, they will have to undergo total sentence of six months more. With this condition, the petitioners be released forthwith. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 12, 2011 JUDGE ashish