Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: August 12, 2011 INDERJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE (U.T.), CHANDIGARH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. SANJEEV SHARMA, ADVOCATE AMICUS CURIAE, FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. HEMANT BASSI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR U.T. CHANDIGARH. M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL) 1. Accused Kulwant Singh was convicted under Section 307 and 325 IPC and Inderjit Singh was convicted under Section 307/34 and 325/34 IPC. Both of them have jointly preferred the present appeal. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 22.4.1997, at about 11.30 a.m. When PW5 Satwinder Kaur was washing her clothes in a pond, a brawl between herself and accused Inderjit Singh who was taking a bath in the said pond took place. While PW5 Satwinder Kaur was proceeding alongwith PW6 Sunil Kumar near the house of the accused, accused Kulwant Singh came out of his house armed with kassi and accused Inderjit came out of the very same house with iron rod. Kulwant Singh attacked Sunil Kumar with kassi on his hand. Accused Inderjit Singh pushed him down and thereafter accused Kulwant Singh delivered blows with kassi on his head. Accused Inderjit having collected a broken handle of kassi Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 -2- attacked PW5 Satwinder Kaur on her hands. Thereafter both the accused sped away from the scene of occurrence. PW1 Dr.Deepak Bakhshi medico- legally examined PW6 Sunil Kumar and found a horizontal stitched wound on the left occipital region, a stitched wound on the right occipital region, a stitched wound on the right tempro-parietal region and a stitched wound on the palm of the left hand. Left leg above knee was found plastered. The nail of the left ring finger also was missing. Based on x-ray report submitted by PW4 Dr.Ladwans, the injury on the left hand sustained by PW6 was declared as grievous and the other injuries as simple in nature. PW7 Dr.Puran Singh medico-legally examined PW5 Satwinder Kaur and found a lacerated wound in the middle of the back of right forearm and an abrasion on the left side of upper lip. Based on the x-ray submitted by PW4 Dr.Ladwans, he opined that first injury, namely, a lacerated wound in the middle of the back of right forearm being a fracture injury was grievous in nature and the other injury was simple in nature. PW9 Inspector Tirath Singh having investigated the matter filed final report as against these accused. 3. On the side of the defence one Darshan Kaur was examined as DW1 and one Dr.Ashok Gupta was examined as DW2. DW1 Darshan Kaur claiming herself to be an eye-witness to the brawl which took place at the pond between the accused and PW5 Satwinder Kaur comes out with a totally different story. DW2 Dr.Ashok Gupta gives a second opinion on the injuries sustained by PW5 Satwinder Kaur and PW6 Sunil Kumar. 4. There was no representation for the appellants on 3.8.2011. This Court was constrained to appoint Sh.Namit Sharma, Advocate as Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 -3- Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the appellants. But the presence of Sh.Namit Sharma, Advocate could not be secured in spite of the efforts taken by this Court. Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate who is present in the Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae. He having thoroughly perused the entire records argued the case on behalf of the appellants. I also heard the submissions made by Sh.Hemant Bassi, Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for U.T. Chandigarh. The entire materials on record was thoroughly analyzed by me in the background of the submissions made on the either side. 5. PW5 Satwinder Kaur and PW6 Sunil Kumar are the injured witnesses in this case. PW5 Satwinder Kaur has spoken about the previous occurrence which took place at the pond between herself and accused Injderjit Singh when she was washing her clothes and accused Inderjit Singh was taking a bath. PW5 Satwinder Kaur and PW6 Sunil Kumar have deposed before the trial Court that when they were proceedings near the house of the accused-appellants, accused Kulwant Singh armed with kassi attacked PW6 Sunil Kumar and caused as many as 6 injuries. Those 6 injuries have been noted down by PW1 Dr.Deepak Bakhshi. The injury on the left leg was found to be grievous in nature. PW6 also has spoken to the injury caused to Satwinder Kaur PW5 by accused Inderjit Singh with the broken handle of kassi. PW5 Satwinder Kaur also lends corroboration to the evidence of PW6 Sunil Kumar. PW8 Kiran who also witnessed the occurrence has deposed that accused Kulwant Singh armed with kassi attacked PW6 Sunil Kumar and accused Inderjit Singh attacked PW5 Satwinder Kaur with a broken handle of kassi and caused injuries on their Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 -4- persons. PW7 Dr.Puran Singh has deposed that one lacerated wound on the forearm and an abrasion on the left side of the upper lip on the person of PW5 Satwinder Kaur were found. He has certified that the forearm injury which culminated in fracture was a grievous injury. 6. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured witnesses, namely, PW5 and PW6. I do not find any contradiction in the testimony of PW5 and PW6. There was no reason for them to come with any falsehood as they were found to be the witnesses who sustained injuries in the occurrence. Their testimonies are also corroborated by independent witness PW8 Kiran. As the evidence of PW8 Kiran lends corroboration to the evidence of PW5 and PW6, I do no find any reason to reject the evidence of independent witness Kiran. Further the medical evidence also completely lends support to the case of the prosecution. 7. In the face of injured witnesses account available on record, I do not find any truth in the testimony of DW1 Darshan Kaur. The medical evidence of PW1 and PW7 completely supports the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses PW5 and PW6. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 Dr.Ashok Gupta explaining the injuries sustained by PW5 and PW6 in his own style is not found to be credit-worthy. I find that the trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW8, in the background of medical evidence on record and rendered the verdict of conviction as stated supra. I do not find any reason to upset the well-merited judgement of the trial Court. Of course, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants would submit that some leniency in the matter of sentence may be shown as the accused-appellants had faced the trial for about 14 long Crl.A. No.410-SB of 2003 -5- years. I find that there is some force in the submission made by learned Amicus Curiae appointed to argue the case of the accused-appellants. 8. In view of the above, the judgement of conviction recorded by the trial Court as against both the accused-appellants is upheld. The sentence of 1 year and fine of `500/- with default sentence of 15 days for the offence under Section 325 IPC as against accused Kulwant Singh and for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC as against Inderjit Singh stands confirmed. But the sentence of 5 years R.I. imposed on accused Kulwant Singh for offence under Section 307 IPC and similar sentence imposed on accused Inderjit Singh for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC is reduced to 3 years R.I. considering the lengthy ordeal of trial faced by the accused- appellants. But the fine of `1000/- and the default sentence therein imposed by the trial Court for the said offence is maintained. The sentence shall run concurrently. 9. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, within 15 days from the date of this judgement. In default thereof, he shall issue non-bailable warrants and send the appellants to prison to undergo the unexpired portion of their sentence. August 12, 2011 (M.JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE