In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1997 of 2004 Date of decision: 20.05.2009 Balbir Singh and others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The accused-petitioners and Kashmir Singh (non petitioner) have been convicted vide judgment dated 22.2.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and sentenced as under :- Balbir Singh U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/-. Jagir Singh U/s 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/- on two counts. Kashmir Singh U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Crl. Revision No. 1997 of 2004 -2- *** and to pay fine of Rs.150/-. Pamma Singh U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/- on two counts. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment dated 15.9.2004. However, this revision petition has been preferred by Balbir Singh, Jagir Singh and Pamma Singh only. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.7.1994, ASI Saman Singh along with other police officers was present in the police station when he received information regarding suffering of the injuries by four persons namely Gulab Singh, Akko Bai, Gulzar Singh and Bharawan Bai, thus, he went to the Civil Hospital, Guru Har Sahai and after seeking opinion of the doctor with regard to the fitness of the injured to make statement, recorded statement of Gulab Singh, who in his statement disclosed that on the intervening night of 21/22.7.1994, when he along with his family members Akko Bai, Gulzar Singh, Resham Singh and his daughter in law Bharawan Bai were sleeping in their courtyard. At about 9.00 p.m. they woke up on the barking of their dog, then he saw Balbir Singh armed with takua, Jagir Singh and Pamma Singh armed with dang, Kashmir Singh alias Kala armed with kirpan came near their house. Balbir Singh exhorted to chain the dog and further said that no body could abuse them. At this, JagirSingh raised lalkara that Gulab Singh be caught and be taught a lesson for not chaining the dog. When he advanced towards him and reached pahi, Balbir Singh inflicted a takua blow on the head of the complainant, in the meanwhile Jagir Singh inflicted a dang blow which landed on the upper part of his body. On raising hue and cry, Akko Bai his son Gulzar Singh and daughter in law Bharawan Bai came forward at his rescue but the accused caused injuries to them also with their respective weapons. Resham Singh and his nephew Waryam Singh who were present Crl. Revision No. 1997 of 2004 -3- *** in the house saved the injured from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, they ran away with their respective weapons. A case was registered on the statement of Gulab Singh and investigated. The motive behind the occurrence was that the dog of Gulab Singh etc. barked at Balbir Singh etc. at the time of occurrence to which they protested. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses; prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence; collected medicolegal report and ultimately challaned the accused. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Balraj Bhora (PW1), Gulab Singh (PW2), Gulzar Singh (PW3), Bharawan Bai (PW4) and ASI Saman Singh (PW5). In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The accused examined Dr. Faqir Masih (DW1) in their defence. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal preferred by them also failed. All the accused except Kashmir Singh, preferred the revision petition. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not weigh with the mind of the court. The case is based on the testimony of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version. As regards the plea that because of turban on the head of the injured, in the presence of which the injured could not suffer any injury, it may be observed that Gulab Singh (PW2) was wearing turban over his head only without covering the scalp of the head so possibly injury could be caused with the sharp edged weapon like takua on the head of the complainant Gulab Singh and the corresponding cut on the turban could not necessarily be caused. Further Gulzar Singh (PW3) in his cross examination has submitted this fact that Gulab Singh become unconscious for 3-4 minutes after falling on the ground due to the injury on his head but Crl. Revision No. 1997 of 2004 -4- *** he appears to have exaggerated only this fact of unconsciousness, but this fact does not in any way help the case of the petitioners. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that it is a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioners on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in this case took place on 22.7.1994. The petitioners have suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. The injuries found on the person of the injured are simple in nature. It is a cross case where the petitioners also suffered injuries. The petitioners have already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. Thus, ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to already undergone and the injured could be compensated for the injuries suffered by them. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition the sentence is modified to the extent of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioners would pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each which would be paid to the injured in equal shares, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. May 20, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge