Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 Date of Decision:06.07.2009 Balwant Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against judgment dated 14.8.1992 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby he dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.1990/ order of sentence dated 21.12.1990 (inadvertently written as 21.12.1991) rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri whereby he convicted and sentenced Balwant Singh and Om Parkash accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 325 of IPC and further sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 323 of IPC. The facts in brief are that the “Baras” (enclosures) of Bachna Ram husband of Surji Devi on the one hand and Balwant Singh, Om Parkash accused on the other hand were adjacent to each other. A few days Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 -2- prior to this occurrence, a dispute arose between the parties over the extent of their “Baras”, which was settled by the brotherhood of the village. On 14.10.1984 at about 1:00 P.M., Balwant Singh, Om Parkash accused and Bhopal Singh another accused (since deceased) allegedly encroached upon the “Bara” of the complainant by putting fodder sticks which was objected to by Surji Devi. Balwant Singh picked up a lathi from the spot and gave three lathi blows on the body of Surji Devi. Bhopal Singh (sic.) also by picking up a danda delivered a danda blow on her. On being raised alarm by her, her husband Bachna Ram was attracted to the place of occurrence. Om Parkash accused caused injuries to Bachna Ram with a lathi. Bachna Ram as well as Surji Devi were rescued by Daya Ram PW. Thereafter, the accused decamped from the spot along with their respective weapons. The injured persons were got medico-legally examined and the case was registered. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation,the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused were charged under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. C. Paul Mehandiratta PW1, Bachna Ram PW2, Daya Ram PW3, Surji Devi PW4, Dr. S.C. Goel PW5, Head Constable Babu Ram PW6 and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Balwant Singh as well as Om Parkash denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. Balwant Singh accused as well as Bhopal Singh accused since deceased denied their presence at the spot. In their defence, they examined Ravi Dayal DW1 and Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 -3- Dharam Pal DW2. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced Balwant Singh as well as Om Parkash accused as noticed at the outset. Bhopal Singh breathed his last during pendency of the trial. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/ sentence, they went up in appeal, which also met failure. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners assiduously urged that the Courts below have fallen into a legal error in not acquitting the petitioners on the grounds that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution run counter to the ocular testimony. As per the medical evidence, fracture seen on the wrist of Surji Devi could be caused by a fall. This contention merits rejection. Of course, Dr. Suresh Chander Goyal PW5 has testified in his cross-examination that “fracture can be occurred on fall on hard surface,” but it deserves to be pointed out here that the medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities, being inconclusive cannot be accepted. Furthermore, as is borne out from the prosecution evidence, Surji Devi had sustained injury on her wrist during the occurrence. As per the principle of law enunciated by the Apex Court in re: Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 921(1), “the medical evidence cannot override direct evidence about assault by particular weapon when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable.” In the case in hand, the ocular account is consistent and credible. Of course, it is true that it is not Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 -4- necessary to invariably accept the version of the injured witnesses, but it is well settled that greater weight has to be given to the testimony of the injured witnesses. In view of Mein Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports 466 (SC), the opinion evidence of a Doctor is not binding on the Court. Thus, this contention being bereft of any merit is jettisoned. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. On scrutinising and analysing the entire evidence, it transpires that the defence evidence does not compete with the probabilities rather the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below is upheld. At this juncture, Mr. Bali submitted that this incidence having taken place way back in 1984, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. Needless to say, this incident is more than 24 years old. In re: Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports Criminal 108, the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The occurrence being 18 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). In re: Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 477, also the accused was convicted under Section 326 of IPC. The incident being 17 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month). Herein, as per the custody certificate, each petitioner has undergone 12 days of the actual sentence. They have been facing the agony of trial since 1984. In re: Criminal Revision No.558 of 1992 -5- Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.), the accused was convicted and sentenced to 15 months rigorous imprisonment under the Food Adulteration Act. The incident being 20 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one year). In the instant case, the petitioners while on bail during pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this liberty. The complainant party can be compensated in monetary terms. In peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (12 days each). The fine imposed by the learned trial Court upon each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. On deposit, an amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured Surji Devi and an equal amount shall be paid over to her husband Bachna Ram. The revision of the defaulting petitioner shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The learned trial Court shall send necessary intimation with regards to the non- deposit of difference of fine, if any, to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, who in turn shall take necessary steps to send the defaulting petitioner to prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Successor Court of Mr. R.K. Sharma, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. July 06, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No