CRR NO.588 OF 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 588 OF 2002 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Antar Singh and another ……Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab …..Respondent Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Jagdeep S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dheer, AAG,Punjab A.N.JINDAL, J This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa partly accepting the appeal of the petitioners, while acquitting Bahadur Singh and Pal Singh, maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioners Antar Singh, Sukha Singh under Sections 325, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code. Briefly, stated the facts as culled out the prosecution evidence are that on 22nd July, 1999 after receiving the fitness certificate from the doctor Civil Hospital, Mansa, recorded the statement of Bhagwant Singh injured, wherein he disclosed that on 22.07.1999 at 3:00 p.m. he and his son Kulwinder Singh were spraying their paddy crop. The field of Antar Singh adjoined their field. In the mean time Antar Singh, his brother in law Sukha Singh armed with axe and Kasia respectively along with other two persons came there. Antar Singh abused him and inflicted on axe blow from the blunt side to him. Sukha Singh also gave a Kasia blow on his right thigh and also inflicted some other injuries, when he was lying on the ground and raising hue and cry, his son Kulwinder Singh and his brother Harbans Singh who had come at CRR NO.588 OF 2002 2 the spot, also witnessed the occurrence. Assailants were nursing a grudge on account of an old dispute between them therefore they after taking liquor had caused injuries to them. Ten injuries were found on the person of Bhagwant Singh. Out of which 1,2,3,5 and 9 were kept under observation. Later on, on the basis of X-ray report injury no. 5 was found grievous. The case registered against the petitioners was investigated and a report was submitted against all the four petitioners. All the petitioners were charged under Sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they denied and opted to contest. During trial prosecution examined Dr. Tarlok Singh,PW-1 Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa, who had medico-legally examined Bhagwant Singh and found ten injuries on his person, Dr. S.K. Bansal, PW-2 S.M.O. Civil Hospital, opined as per X-ray report, that injury no. 5 was grievous in nature, Bhagwant Singh,PW-3 complainant injured eye witness has narrated the incident in minute details, Kulwinder Singh, PW-4 has supported the testimony of Bhagwant Singh, Dr. Kulwant Singh, PW-5 had given surgical opinion about injuries on the person of injured Bhagwant Singh, PW-6 SI Sukhdev Singh, is the Investigating Officer. Besides prosecution tendered into evidence Ex.PA copy of MLR regarding Bhagwant Singh, Ex.PA/1 pictorial diagram thereon, Ex.PB application moved by ASI Jagjit Singh dated 22.7.99 to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa Ex.PB/1 opinion of doctor thereon about un-fitness of patient to make statement, Ex.PC report of doctor regarding injury No. 5, Ex.PD X-ray report given by DR.S.P.Bansal, Ex. PD statement of Bhagwant Singh recorded on 23.07.99(to distinguish it from Ex.PD X-ray report), Ex.PD/1 copy of FIR, Ex.PE copy of Bed Head Ticket, Ex.PW5/A surgical CRR NO.588 OF 2002 3 opinion given by Dr. Kulwant Singh, Ex.Pw6/A copy of entry of DDR dated 23.07.1999 of P.S.Sadar, Mansa, Ex.PW6/B application moved by SI Sukhdev Singh to SHO Civil Hospital, Mansa seeking opinion about fitness of Bhagwant Singh injured to make statement. Ex.PW6/C opinion of doctor about fitness of injured to make statement dated 23.07.1999. Ex.PW6/D rough site plan of place of recovery, Ex.PW/6E recovery memo of axe from Antar Singh, Ex.PW6/F recovery memo of Kasia from Sukha Singh, Ex.PW6/G recovery memo of Dang from Bhadur Singh, Ex.PW6/H recovery memo Dang from Pal Singh. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied all the allegations and pleaded their falsely implication in the case. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction of all the accused. However, on appeal, the accused Bahadur Singh and Pal Singh were acquitted and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. Arguments heard. The main plank of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. It has been urged that the, occurrence took place on 22.07.1999 and FIR was lodged against them on 30.07.1999 but the record reveals that the injured were medically examined on 23.07.1999. DDR against the accused was recorded on 23.07.1999. The FIR was not registered as at the initial stage the case was non-cognizable. However, after receipt of the X-ray report whereby injury no. 5 was found grievous in nature case under Section 325 IPC registered. Thus, the delay having been duly explained assures insignificance. The occular version is quite consistent with medical evidence. PW-1 Dr. Tarlok Singh while giving narration of injuries disclosed that as many as 10 injuries were found on the person of the CRR NO.588 OF 2002 4 complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the Complainant injured an eye witness to the incident and he would be the last person to substitute the false persons in place of real culprits. His testimony finds corroboration from Kulwinder Singh,PW-4. The X-ray report Ex.P-D, reveals fracture of 10th rib of the injured. He remained in the hospital from 22nd July, 1999 to 30.07.1999. No plausible defence has been led by the petitioners in order to prove their innocence. In the last, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for taking some lenient view. Having heard this contention it may be observed that the petitioners caused as many as 10 injuries on the person of the injured out of which injury no. 5 was found to be grievous in nature. The injured is none else but their own relative. They without taking caring of the break in the social ties caused him multiple injuries. Therefore, it is not a fit case to extend them benefit of probation. However, keeping in view the other circumstances as also the longivity of the proceedings, some reduction in the sentence could be made. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to 9 months under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the sentence awarded under Section 323 would remain intact. The copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa for compliance. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 16th February, 2009 SKaushik