IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 Date of decision: October 14, 2010 Santokh Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 1.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, convicting and sentencing both the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the Accused'), as under :- Gurdev Singh U/s 326 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-. U/s 323 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months. Santokh Singh U/s 326/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months. On 9.4.1997 when the complainant Nachhatar Singh (an injured eye witness) was going to his father Dial Singh's house and reached near the house of master Yuvraj Bahader and when he was still in the street, Santokh Singh empty handed and Gurdev Singh armed with kirpan were seen standing there. Santokh Singh exhorted that the complainant be now allowed to go scot-free. He grappled with the complainant, whereas, Gurdev Singh inflicted kirpan blow on his right thumb which was chopped Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 -2- off. He further inflicted injuries on his two first fingers. When complainant tried to ward off the blow, accused Gurdev Singh again inflicted kirpan blow on his left hand. Thereafter, he inflicted kirpan blow from a blunt side on his right arm. On raising hue and cry, Gurtej Singh younger brother and Jasmel Kaur mother of the complainant came running and witnessed the occurrence. At this, the accused fled away. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kot Ise Khan by his brother from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Moga. However, the doctor at Civil Hospital, Moga referred him to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. On 10.4.1997, ASI Joginder Singh went to Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot and recorded statement of the complainant, on the basis of which FIR was registered and the case was investigated. On completion of the investigation, both the accused were challaned. They were charged under Sections 326/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Gurminder Singh (PW1) who proved the MLR Ex.P1 of the complainant. Nachhatar Singh being the complainant-injured while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 reiterated the entire prosecution version leading to the occurrence. He also proved first informatory statement Ex.P4. Gurjinder Singh (PW3), an eye witness has also supported the prosecution version. Gurtej Singh (PW4) is another eye witness. Dr. Mohinder Paul (PW5) is a formal witness. He had referred the complainant to Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot. ASI Joginder Singh (PW6) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He besides proving the application Ex.P3, proved applications Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and his endorsement Ex.PW4/A, side plan Ex.P9, applications Ex.P11 and P12. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Gurdev Singh has further explained that he used to object to the visit of the wife of his brother Gurdip Singh at the house of the complainant for which he was nursing a grudge. On the day of occurrence, the complainant came to their house and told that Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 -3- in-laws of Gurdip Singh had come to his house, therefore, they also should come to at some settlement. Gurdev Singh was not present in the house at that time, he later came and went to the house of the complainant but he did not find any one of his family members or in-laws of Gurdip Singh present there. When he asked the complainant as to what he wanted to talk, then Jugraj Singh, Gurtej Singh and Dial Singh father of the complainant exhorted to teach him a lesson for making false allegations against them. All of them threw him on the ground and caused him injuries with sticks and sota. They inflicted one blow on his head and he became unconscious. All the aforesaid persons caused several other internal injuries on his person. Thereafter, he was taken away in the van to various places and he re-gained consciousness in the Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot from where he was brought and admitted in the hospital by Jugraj Singh and he remained admitted there for 5-6 days. He was not allowed to leave the hospital by Jugraj Singh and others, therefore, he could not visit his family members and his family members were also not allowed to visit him in the hospital as they were not aware about his admission. Later on, he was falsely implicated in the case. Defence propounded by Santokh Singh was that he was not present at the time of occurrence and he was falsely involved in the case. In defence, they examined Raj Rani, Record Keeper, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot (DW1) who has stated that vide entries No.1344 and 1345 (Ex.D1 and D2 respectively) of emergency register, Nachhatar Singh and Gurdip Singh were admitted in the hospital on 9.4.1997. The trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Much stress has been given that there is delay in lodging the FIR which may result in embellishments in the prosecution version exaggeration of the allegations and addition of the accused. Having examined the records and considered the arguments, no merit could be found in the same. The occurrence took place at about 4.30 p.m. at village Bhinder Khurd. The injured was first taken to the Civil Hospital, Kot Ise Khan, where he was medically examined at 5.55 p.m. ASI Joginder Singh went to the Civil Hospital at about 8.25 p.m. on the same Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 -4- day and moved application Ex.P3 over which Dr. Gurdev Singh made endorsement that the injured has been referred to Civil Hospital, Moga then on the same day, Investigating Officer went to the Civil Hospital, Moga and moved application Ex.P7 over which the doctor made the endorsement that the injured has been referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot for further treatment. Then on the next day, i.e. 10.4.1997, ASI Joginder Singh went to the Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot and moved application over which the doctor made his endorsement that the injured was fit to make the statement. Thereafter, statement of the complainant-injured was recorded on 10.4.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. on the basis of which FIR Ex.P13 was recorded at 2.00 p.m. All this goes to show that no time was wasted by the Investigating Officer and he was prevented by the unavoidable circumstances to record the statement of the complainant as he was not fit to make the statement. At the same time it is always the anxiety of the relatives to get the patient treated than to rush to the police station for lodging the report. Thus, the circumstances reveal that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and the delay, if any, stands explained by the prosecution. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioners that it was not only the complainant who suffered injuries, but Gurdev Singh also suffered injuries. The injuries Ex.D1 and D2 made in the emergency register in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College &Hospital, Faridkot reveal this fact, therefore, non explanation of the injuries on the person of Gurdev Singh create a doubt about the genuineness of the occurrence and the benefit of which should be given to the accused. The trial court as well as the appellate court after examining the injuries Ex.D1 and D2 discarded them particularly on the ground that no medical record has been produced revealing the treatment given to Gurdev Singh. If any injury has been inserted in the record by the authorities of the hospital that does not indicate if Gurdev Singh was admitted along with the complainant in the hospital. Having examined the injury report Ex.D-1, I would go a step further to say that Gurdev Singh did not suffer injury during the occurrence as in column No.C1345 dated 9.4.1997 Gurdev Singh on his own got recorded that “he suffered injuries per chance and he wanted to get himself treated and he does not want any police action”. This entry itself Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 -5- reveals that Gurdev Singh did not suffer injuries at the time of occurrence, but some times thereafter, therefore, such injuries were not required to be explained by the complainant party. In any case, assuming for the sake of arguments, the admission made by Gurdev Singh that the injuries were inflicted on his person by the complainant party, the said admission would at least prove the fact that the occurrence had taken place in which the complainant suffered injuries, but at the same time, the admission made by Gurdev Singh in Ex.D-1 goes against him that he was not caused any injury by the complainant party. So far as the contention with regard to motive is concerned, the complainant has specifically stated that sister of his wife was married to Gurdip Singh (brother of the accused Gurdev Singh) who was son of Santokh Singh. He further deposed that there used to be a dispute between Gurdip Singh and his wife and he was torturing her. On the day of occurrence, he was going to the house of his father to take up the matter with the accused party, but he was waylaid by the accused and caused injuries by them. Gurdev Singh accused has also admitted that Gurdip Singh was objecting to his wife's visits to the house of the complainant which also indicates that Gurdip Singh was nursing a grudge against the complainant. Gurjinder Singh (PW3) has also corroborated the testimony of the complainant while stating that the accused had caused injuries to the complainant when he was going to the house of his father. The accused have failed to prove, if the incident occurred other than at a place near the house of his father, therefore, the story as set up by the complainant he was going to visit his father's house also stands confirmed. Not only this, the prosecution version stand corroborated by Gurtej Singh another eye witness. The medical evidence also fits in with the ocular version. The minor contradictions are bound to occur in the statement of truthful witnesses. The human memory is likely to fade with the passage of time, rather such contradictions and minor improvements confirm that the witnesses are truthful. Out of the six injuries suffered by the complainant, there are two grievous injuries, which are re-produced as under :- Criminal Revision No. 2476 of 2003 -6- “1. Incised wound measuring 9 x 2 cms on the outeral aspect of left thumb extending from the root of nail to the base of thumb. Underlying bones first metacarpel bone is completely cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Distal phalanyx of right thumb was completely removed. Fresh bleeding present. Oval incised wound was present.” Both the injuries appear to have made the complainant handicapped. In such a situation, why he would implicate false person while leaving the real culprits when the motive behind the occurrence stands fully proved. The improvement with regard to the fact that initially the complainant did not disclose if Santokh Singh had grappled with the injured from behind hardly effects the prosecution case particularly when the occurrence stands admitted by the parties. No other plausible defence has been led. Thus, no interference on the findings of fact with regard to conviction returned by both the courts below could be made. However, keeping in view the longevity of the trial and other peculiar circumstances of the case, I need to reduce the sentence a little. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced from three years to two years qua Gurdev Singh under Section 326 IPC and from one year to nine months qua Santokh Singh under Section 326/34 IPC without any alteration of fine and sentence qua other offences. October 14, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge