Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.4.2009 Teja Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Teja Singh and Balbir Singh, both sons of Sukhdev Singh. They were tried in case FIR No. 117 dated 21.9.2003 registered at Police Station Bhadaur, under Sections 325, 323 & 34 IPC. Petitioners were tried along with Pappu Singh and Sukhdev Singh. In the present case, FIR was recovered on the basis of statement made by Gian Kaur, exhibited as Ex.PD. She stated that she is a resident of village Badni Kalan and do agricultural work and his father Darshan Singh , resident of village Tallewal, had expired about six years ago. Her three brothers are running a Dhaba at Jaipur and Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 2 they had left their house under the care of her grand father Karnail Singh and uncle Sukhdev Singh. It is stated that when marriage of the sister of complainant was to be performed, Gian Kaur along with her brother came to her native house. She was restrained by her uncle Sukhdev Singh from entering the house. Therefore, the marriage was performed from the house of Nambardar Chand Singh. Ajmer Kaur, mother of the complainant, had filed a civil suit regarding the property at Barnala. It was stated that Ajmer Kaur, her mother and two younger sisters reside with complainant Gian Kaur in the house of her husband Nirbhai Singh. It is stated that on the day of occurrence, she came to village to persuade grand father Karnail Singh to return the property. While they were talking, at 5.00 P.M. on 20.9.2003, Sukhdev Singh, his sons, Pappu, Balbir and Teja Singh came there. They raised a lalkara that the complainant should be taught lesson for demanding share in the property. Balbir Sing gave fist blow to Gian Kaur due to which her tooth fell down. Teja Singh gave another fist blow which hit on her left eye. Balbir Singh gave kick blows in her abdomen, whereas Teja Singh gave a kick blow on her back. When her husband Nirbhai Singh came forward to rescue her, all the four petitioners gave three injuries to him. They raised noise which attracted Sukhdev Singh, former Member Panchayat, Nachhatar Singh, former Sarpanch of the village. She and her husband Nirbhai Singh were got admitted in the hospital. During the fight, she also lost her ear ring. The matter was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) was submitted. Balbir Singh was substantively charged for the offence under Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 3 Section 325 IPC for causing grievous injury to Gian Kaur, whereas other co-accused were charged with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Teja Singh, Balbir Singh and Pappu Singh were substantively charged under Section 323 IPC for causing grievous injuries to Gian Kaur and Nirbhai Singh. Gian Kaur was medicolegally examined by PW.2 Dr. Neera Chopra on 20.9.2003. The following injuries were found on her person:- “1. Whole face was swollen with an inflamed and injured area about 1X1 inch in size under the left eye; 2. Blunt injuries on back with inflamed area about 10X10 inch in size X lower lumber region; 3. Blunt injuries on front of lower abdomen which is tendered to touch; And 4. One tooth is missing from right lower mandible with fresh bleeding oozing out from socket. An injured area opposite to the tooth on lower lip is present about 1 cm X 0.5 cm in size. Tooth was not traceable because of fighting”. Injury No.4 was declared grievous. Nirbhai Singh had also suffered three blunt injuries. According to counsel for the petitioner, all injuries were declared simple. But the doctor who had appeared as PW.2 had not deposed regarding the injuries suffered by Nirbhai Singh. Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 4 Gian Kaur appeared as PW.3 and her mother Ajmer Kaur appeared as PW.4. It is stated that Nirbhai Singh had not appeared as a witness. The trial Court held Balbir Singh guilty for offence under Section 325 IPC and other co-accused were convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. They were also convicted for offence under Section 323 IPC. The trial Court sentenced Balbir Singh to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 325 IPC. Pappu Singh and Teja Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Pappu Singh and Teja Singh were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas Balbir Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Sukhdev Singh, father of Teja Singh, Balbir Singh and Pappu Singh was acquitted by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the judgment, Pappu Singh , Teja Singh and Balbir Singh had filed an appeal. Pappu Singh was acquitted by the lower Appellate Court. Appeal preferred by Teja Singh and Balbir Singh was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that Gian Kaur was injured; She had appeared as PW.3 and she has been believed by two Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 5 Courts below. Counsel for the petitioners further stated that in the present case occurrence pertains to year 2003. He further submitted that the parties are closely related and in case petitioners are sent behind the bars, their relations will be sour for all times to come and the parties will not be in a position to patch up their relationship. It is further submitted that nature of injuries reveal that occurrence had taken place on the spur of moment without any pre-mediation when the complainant had gone to lodge protest to her grand father. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not armed with any weapon. They had only caused injuries with fist and kick blows. Counsel for the petitioners has further stated that since the occurrence had taken place on the spur of moment without any pre- mediation, therefore, offence under Section 325 IPC will not be made out and offence, if any, will fall under Section 335 IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that taking into account the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2003 and the petitioners had suffered protracted trial, petitioners be released on probation. I find merit in these contentions made by counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the State has submitted that trial Court had imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- in this case and the fine should be enhanced adequately and the same should be given to the injured as compensation. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. They will execute bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, with an Criminal Revision No. 755 of 2009 6 undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of probation. The cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.10,000/- qua each accused and the total amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured as compensation. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 18, 2009 “DK”