CIVIL APPEAL 953 of 2000 on 5 August 1991

1. Left fore-arm swelling present deformitypresent. Tenderness present.present. Tenderness present.

2. Lacerated wound of 3”x1” on right parietalregion.region.

3. Lacerated wound of 1”x ½” on left eyebrow.brow.

4. Complaint of pain right shoulder, Advised X-ray right shoulder.ray right shoulder.

After obtaining the X-ray report, the doctor declaredinjuries No.1 and 4 to be grievous in nature, while the remaining injurieswere simple.

On the same day, at about 10.00 A.M., the said doctor also medico legally examined Ajaib Singh and found the following injuries :-

1. Swelling and tenderness of left fore-arm.Advised X-ray of left fore-arm.Advised X-ray of left fore-arm.

2. Swelling and tenderness right fore-arm.Advised X-ray of right fore-arm.Advised X-ray of right fore-arm.

Injury No.2 was declared grievous in nature in view of theX-ray report, whereas injury No.1 was found to be simple.

Niranjan Singh was also medico legally examined byDr. Parminder Singh on 5.8.1991 at 10.00 A.M., who found thefollowing injuries on his person :-

1. Lacerated wound 2”x1” on right palm,bleeding present.bleeding present.

2. Lacerated wound of 1”x ½” on left middlefinger.finger.

3. Complaint of pain in left fore-arm. AdvisedX-ray left fore-arm.X-ray left fore-arm.

All the injuries were subjected to radiological examinationand after obtaining the report, the doctor declared injuries No.2 and 3 asgrievous in nature, while injury No.1 was declared as simple.

Similarly, Surinder Singh was medico legally examined onthe same day at 10.00 A.M. and the following injuries were noticed on his person :-

1. Swelling and tenderness on right knee joint.Advised X-ray right knee joint. Advised X-ray right knee joint.

2. Lacerated wound of 2”x1” on right parietalregion.region.

On the basis of the X-ray report, the doctor declared injury No.1 as grievous in nature, while injury No.2 as dangerous to life in theabsence of medical aid.

It may be mentioned here that on the basis of the statementmade by Norata Ram on 6.8.1991, DDR No.22 was incorporated inPolice Station, Banur. Pursuant to the conclusion of the medico legalreport in respect of the injured, the police found that the place ofoccurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sohana andtherefore, no further proceedings need be taken in the said PoliceStation. Thereafter, statement Ex. PD of Niranjan Singh was recordedon 14.8.1991, on the basis of which FIR No. 33 dated 14.8.1991 wasregistered at Police Station, Sohana.

After the completion of the investigation, the challan waspresented by the police against the six accused under Sections307/325/323/149/148 IPC and the case committed to the Court ofSessions. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar videorder dated 15.7.1992 came to the conclusion that injury No.2 on theperson of Surinder Singh injured did not fall under Section 307 IPC,instead, it fell under Section 325 IPC Only. Accordingly, after framingcharges under Sections 325/323/149 and 148 IPC against the sixaccused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, sent the file to the Court ofChief Judicial Magistrate for trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined NiranjanSingh complainant as PW1, Norata Ram, eye witness as PW2, GurnaibSingh, Ajaib Singh and Surinder Singh, injured, as PWs 3, 4 and 6,respectively, Dr. S.P. Bhardwaj, Radiologist as PW5, SI Atma Singh as PW7, Gian Chand, Draftsman as PW8, Constable Bachan Singh asPW9, ASI Chain Singh as PW10, SI Tarsem Singh, InvestigatingOfficer as PW11 and Dr. Parminder Singh as PW12.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accusedpleaded false implication. In defence, they examined Dial Singh DW1,who testified that no such occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, hadtaken place.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and goingthrough the evidence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar videjudgment dated 10.12.1999 acquitted Kesar Ram accused of the chargesagainst him. However, the prosecution case against the remaining fiveaccused was accepted. All of them were convicted under Sections 148,325 and 323 IPC. Subhash Chand accused was extended the benefit ofprobation. However, the remaining four accused, namely, Pirthi Chand,Raj Kumar @ Raju, Pawan Kumar and Baljinder Singh were sentencedto undergo RI for one year each under Sections 148 IPC. Accused Raju@ Raj Kumar was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay afine of Rs.600/- under Section 325 IPC whereas accused Pirthi, PawanKumar and Baljinder Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for 1½ yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each. Accused Baljinder Singh wassentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.600/-under Section 325 IPC whereas accused Raju, Pawan Kumar and Pirthiwere sentenced to undergo RI for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-each. Accused Pawan Kumar was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.600/- under Section 325 IPC whereas Pirthi,Baljinder Singh and Raju were sentenced to undergo RI for 1½ yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each. All four of them, namely, Raju @Raj Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Pirthi Chand and Baljinder Singh weresentenced to undergo RI for four months each under Section 323 IPC(wrongly mentioned in the order of sentence passed by the trial Court asSection 300 IPC). All the substantive sentences were ordered to runconcurrently. Out of the fine, if realised, 50% of the same was orderedto be paid to the injured equally.

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, thepetitioners, along with Pirthi Chand and Subhash Chand @ Bansa, filedan appeal. The lower appellate Court accepted the said appeal, quaPirthi Chand and Subhash Chand @ Bansa accused and acquitted themof charges against them. Consequently, the present petitioners were alsoacquitted under Section 148 IPC as well as in respect of the commonobject as envisaged by Section 149 IPC. Instead, Raj Kumar @ Rajuwas sentenced under Section 325 IPC to undergo RI for two years and topay a fine of Rs.600/-, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for threemonths. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for four months underSection 323 IPC. Similarly, Pawan Kumar petitioner was sentenced toundergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.600/- under Section325/- IPC, in default thereof, to undergo further RI for three months,whereas Baljinder Singh sentenced under Sections 325/34 IPC toundergo RI for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default thereof, further RI for two months. Baljinder Singh petitioner wassentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.600/-under Section 325 IPC, in default thereof to undergo further RI for threemonths, whereas Pawan Kumar sentenced under Sections 325/34 IPC toundergo RI for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in defaultthereof to undergo further RI for two months. Pawan Kumar andBaljinder Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for four months eachunder Section 323 IPC. All these sentences were ordered to runconcurrently. It was further ordered that out of the fine to be so realisedfrom the convicts, 50% be given to the injured.

Conclusion

The prosecution had examined all the four injured, namely,Niranjan Singh PW1, Gurnaib Singh PW3, Ajaib Singh PW4 andSurinder Singh PW6 in support of the ocular account. All of them stoodthe test of cross-examination. The defence had not been able to bring onrecord any material from which it could be established that the accusedhad been falsely implicated. Therefore, their plea that they had beenfalsely implicated cannot be accepted. The testimony of DW1 DialSingh that no such occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, had takenplace, is neither here nor there. He did not state that he was present atthe place of the occurrence at the time of the incident. His plea was thatno one reported the matter to him whereas, if any incident had takenplace in the village, it ought to be within his knowledge but no suchinformation was received by him. As such no case is made out for anyinterference in the conviction of the petitioners.

The occurrence in question had taken place more than 18years back. As per the prosecution, there was no enmity between theparties. The occurrence developed all of a sudden when one of theaccused allowed his buffaloes to stray in the fields of Norata Ram andNiranjan Singh. None of the accused was shown to be armed with anylethal weapon as according to prosecution, all of them, except KesarRam were carrying lathies. Said Kesar Ram, according to theprosecution was empty handed. The petitioners stand convicted , at themost, for the offence under Section 325 IPC, which is punishable withmaximum imprisonment for seven years. The trial Court had extendedthe benefit of probation to one of the accused, namely, Subhash Chand@ Bansa though it was on the ground that he was about 17 years of ageat the time of framing of the charge. None of the petitioners is shown tobe a previous convict. Under these circumstances, ends of justice wouldbe amply met by releasing the petitioners on probation, instead ofmaintaining their sentences of imprisonment and fine. Simultaneously,the Court can require the petitioners to pay adequate amount ascompensation to the injured person.

Resultantly, the revision filed on behalf of the presentpetitioners is partly accepted by maintaining their conviction but settingaside their sentences of imprisonment and, instead requiring them tofurnish bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety of the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Mohali, undertaking to maintain peace and to be of good behaviour for a

period of two years and to receive sentence as and when called upon todo so. The petitioners shall also deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- eachwith the said Court within three months from the preparation of certifiedcopy of the order and on their doing so, the said amount be paid to thefour injured as compensation in equal shares. The Court has beeninformed that Niranjan Singh injured has since died. In that situation,the amount be paid to his two sons, namely Kuldeep Singh and SurinderSingh. The fine already imposed upon the petitioners by the Courtsbelow, if paid, be also treated as compensation. Accordingly, the samebe adjusted towards the aforementioned amount of Rs.20,000/- to bepaid by way of compensation by each of the petitioners. In the event ofthe petitioners failing to furnish the bonds and depositing thecompensation amount, their revision shall be deemed to have beendismissed and they be required to serve the sentences of imprisonmentas imposed by the lower appellate Court.

There is no merit in the revision filed by Ajaib Singh andothers. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

January 18, 2010satish

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE