CRIMINAL APPEAL None on 6 June 1994

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

Rajinder Singh

State of Punjab

Criminal Appeal No. 792-SB of 1997

Date of Decision: 18.3.2008.

…AppellantVersus

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present: Mr. R.K.Battas and Mr. R.D.Gupta, Advocatesfor the appellant.for the appellant.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant AdvocateGeneral, Punjab, for the State.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

Criminal Appeal No. 792-SB of 1997 has been preferred byRajinder Singh who was nominated as accused in case FIR No. 27dated 6.6.1994 registered at Police Station Amloh under Sections 307read with Section 34 IPC.

Appellant was tried along with his wife Balbir Kaur and learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, acquitted his wife andheld him guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergofive years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default ofpayment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo four months rigorousimprisonment.

Learned trial Court has held that the appellant has causedinjuries to Baljit Singh with a gatra kirpan on the right side of chest ofthe victim and the chest injury was declared dangerous to life. Baljit Singh injured remained admitted in C.M.C. Ludhiana. On 4.6.1994, hewas medicolegally examined by Dr.A.Joseph and the following injurieswere found on his person:- “1.

2 cm long incised wound on his right sidechest anteriorly in 6[th] intercostal spaceabout 10 cm from midline communicatingwith plaural cavity, bleeding was present;

2.

2 cm long incised wound left side chestanterior-lateral aspect about 13 cm frommidline in 5[th] of intercostal space minimumbleeding was present;

3. 1.5 cm long incised wound left side chestanteriorly about 10 cm from midline in 7[th]intercostal space minimum bleeding waspresent;

4. 5 cm long incised wound left side of chestlaterally about 21 cm from midlinesubcutaneous tissue was deep, minimalbleeding was present; AND

5. 4 cm long incised wound left elbowposteriorly subcutaneous tissue deep,minimal bleeding was present”.

Baljit Singh injured, appeared as PW.3. He has reiterated theversion given by him in the FIR. Briefly stated, Baljit Singh PW.3 hasstated that appellant Rajinder Singh along with his wife Balbir Kaurcame in the hutment in the fields. They raised objection as the water seepage used to go to the fields of accused. It is further stated thatBalbir Kaur caught hold of him from his leg and Rajinder Singh caughthold him from his arms and thereafter Rajinder Singh took out his gatrakirpan and gave three blows on the left flank, which caused injuries onthe ribs of Baljit Singh, complainant. It was stated that the motive for theoccurrence was a land dispute regarding partition of land. Baljit Singhwas thoroughly cross-examined. The defence failed to cause any dent inhis testimony.

Baljit Singh, PW.3, was corroborated by the testimony ofMalkiat Singh, PW.4.

It has been stated before me that no reliance should be placedby this Court on the testimony of Baljit Singh, PW.3 and Malkiat Singh,PW.4 as they are interested witnesses and no independent witness hasbeen examined. It has been further contended that there are materialdiscrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of thewitnesses, therefore, they suffer from blemish. It has been further statedthat there is a delay of 30 hours in lodging of FIR and, therefore, theprosecution case should be disbelieved.

Having heard Mr. R.K.Battas, I am of the considered opinionthat these arguments in itself are not sufficient to return acquittal of theappellant. As far as the delay is concerned, benefit has already beengiven to the wife of appellant. Baljit Singh is an injured witness. Hispresence at the spot is stamped. He will be the last person to substituteor falsely implicate any other person as accused. Accused andwitnesses belong to the same village. Furthermore, testimony of thewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the investigating agency has examined the spot. Therefore, on this ground,I am afraid, sole accused cannot be acquitted when the injured hadtaken a definite stand against him in the witness box.

In the alternate, Mr. Battas has contended that in the presentcase occurrence pertains to year 1994 and a period of 14 years is goingto lapse and protracted trial in itself should be construed as mitigatingcircumstance. It is further contended that the parties are residents ofsame village and sending the appellant behind the bars at this stagemay not disrupt peace, amity and cordial relations prevailing betweenthe parties. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that theinjuries given were very serious. Victim remained in C.M.C. Ludhianaand the treatment given to him as revealed by the doctor, in hisstatement, does not entitle the appellant to reduction of sentence toalready undergone especially when the appellant has only undergonetwo months and ten days.

Taking totality of circumstances into view, ends of justice willbe fully met in case sentence of appellant is reduced from five years totwo and a half years and fine is increased to Rs.20,000/- and the fine bedeposited within three months. Fine so deposited, be disbursed to theinjured. In case the fine is not deposited then the appellant shallundergo six months in default.

With these observations, the present appeal is disposed off.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge