JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by Gopal Singh, Amrik Singh and Udham Singh sons of Sh. Inder Singh, residents of village Chaur Sidhwan, Police Station Sadar, Gurdaspur, against their conviction and sentence awarded by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who vide his judgment and order dated March 3, 1997, convicted and sentenced them as under:
i) Gopal Singh accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year Under Section 452, IPC to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 6 months Under Section 326, IPC and to undergo R.I. for three months Under Section 323/34, IPC.
ii) Amrik Singh accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year Under Section 452, IPC, to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months Under Section 326/34, IPC and to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months Under Section 323, IPC.
iii) Udham Singh accused is sentenced to undergo RI for one year Under Section 452, IPC, to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I for 3 months Under Section 326, 34, IPC and to undergo R.I for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months Under Section 323, IPC.
2. The petitioners were said to be prosecuted in a complaint instituted by Shangara Singh, who is none else but brother of the three appellants/accused. It is sad that one brother on one side and three brothers on other side are engaged in a criminal litigation since November 1990.
3. Briefly stated, complainant instituted the complaint on November 26, 1990 alleging therein that he and three appellants/ accused are real brothers and sometimes before the occurrence, father of the complainant had sold his three kanals of land to the sons of complainant and delivered possession, due to which the present appellants became hostile. It is further alleged that on 8-11-1990, the complainant had sowed wheat crop in the land and after doing so he came back to his house at 5.30 p.m. At about 6.15 p.m. he along with his son Baldev Singh, wife Piar Kaur and daughter Amarjit Kaur was present in the house then he heard a noise of breaking of outer gate bolt and in the light emanated from the courtyard saw all the three accused/appellant. Out of them accused Gopal Singh was armed with Chhavi, whereas accused Amrik Singh and Udham Singh were armed with dang in their hands. It is further stated that after raising lalkara accused Gopal Singh gave a chhavi blow on the forehead of the complainant, accused Amrik Singh gave a dang blow which hit on the left thigh of the complainant and Udham Singh also gave a dang blow which hit on the right forearm of the complainant, due to which, the complainant fell on the ground. Thereafter, Gopal Singh gave chhavi blow from its reverse side which hit on the right leg of the complainant and Amrik Singh gave one more dang blow which hit on the back of the complainant. Baldev Singh, son of the complainant, came forward to rescue his father Shangara Singh, but Gopal Singh raised Chhavi towards him and under fear he climbed on the roof. On the noise raised by the complainant, his son Baldev Singh and wife Piar Kaur people were attracted due to which accused/appellants decamped from the spot along with their weapons. The complainant further stated that thereafter he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, where he was medicolegally examined and medicolegal report was sent to the police station. His statement was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Ram. Thereafter, Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Ram is said to have proceeded to the spot. Thereafter, complaint contains exaggerations to the fact that Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Ram connived and got all the accused challaned under Section 107/151, Cr. P.C. and therefore, he was also named as accused in the complaint. Since Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Ram was not summoned, he was not tried. Therefore, I need not to go on the allegations levelled against Assistant Sub Inspector Mange Ram.
4. After filing of the complaint, the complainant led his preliminary evidence and the accused were summoned to stand trial by the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, after the commitment of the case, the appellants/accused were charged by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Accused Gopal Singh was charged under Section 459, IPC, whereas others were charged with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Gopal Singh, and others were further charged under Section 460, IPC. He was further charged under Section 326, IPC, whereas others were charged with the aid of Section 34, IPC. Accused Amrik Singh and Udham Singh were substantively charged under Section 323, IPC, whereas accused Gopal Singh was charged with the aid of Section 34, IPC. The accused/appellants before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The complainant examined P.W. 1 Dr. H. S. Bajwa. who had medicolegally examined the complainant Shangara Singh on 8-11-1990 at 6.45 p.m. The following injuries were found on his person:
1. 4 1/2 and 1 1/2 cm incised wound on front left side forehead. 5 cm above eye brow. Bleeding was present. Kept under observation for observation;
2. 6 cm x 3 cm reddish contusion front and lower part of left thigh;
3. 5 cm x 2 1/2 cm reddish contusion with diffused swelling lateral aspect middle of right leg. Tenderness was present.
4. 10 cm x 1 cm reddish contusion over back and middle of right forearm; and
5. 12 cm x 3 cm reddish contusion obliquely placed over back and middle left side chest.
6. Injury No. 1 is on the forehead. Out of five injuries, injury No. 1 was caused with sharp edged weapon and the rest were with blunt weapon.
7. P.W. 4 Dr. Gandharab Singh is a Radiologist, who opined that there was a fracture of frontal bone on the left side of the head. Therefore, injury No. 1 was declared grievous.
8. Shangara Singh appeared as P.W. 2 and his son Baldev Singh appeared as P.W. 3. They have reiterated the version as stated in the complaint.
9. I have heard Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Advocate, appearing for the appellants/accused. He has assailed the evidence of Shangara Singh, P.W. 2 and Baldev Singh, P.W. 3, and stated that due to property dispute the present appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that no independent witness has been examined. His next argument is that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of these two witnesses and it is not safe to rely upon their evidence.
10. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that with the passage of time, discrepancies, if any, are bound to occur.
11. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties. I have perused the evidence and record of the case.
12. The mere fact that on the date of occurrence i.e. 8-11-1990 at 6.45 p.m. Shangara Singh, complainant, was medicolegally examined and five injuries were found on his person and injury No. 1 is a fracture on his forehead. I reject the contention of Mr. Bedi that the appellants have been falsely implicated. Even though the brother may have property dispute, he will be the last person to substitute the accused/appellants for somebody else. Injury on the forehead cannot said to be self-suffered. Therefore, I accept the testimony of Shangara Singh, P.W. 2 and his son Baldev Singh, P.W. 3 and uphold the conviction awarded by the trial Court.
13. At this stage, Mr. Bedi has contended that his alternative prayer be accepted. The present appellants/accused are facing protracted trial since November 1990 and more than 17 years have lapsed.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this submission of Mr. Bedi, Head note of judgment recorded the age of accused Gopal Singh as 57 years, Amrik Singh as 44 years and Udham Singh as 54 years. So with the passage of time of 17 years. Gopal Singh will be about more than 74 years, Amrik Singh will be aged about 61 years and Udham Singh also about 71 years of age, respectively. In such an old age and at the fag end of their life, to send the appellants in jail will not meet the ends of justice, especially when the parties are none else but brothers.
15. Furthermore, I accept the contention of Mr. Bedi that for the last 17 years no untoward incident had taken place. By sending the appellants into jail at this stage, will disturb the peace between the parties, which they have maintained. At the same time, it is found that the complainant suffered grievous injury on his head.
16. Taking into totality of the circumstances into view, I reduce the sentence of the appellants into till rising of the Court and award fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. To undergo their sentences, the appellants will surrender in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, on or before 15-3-2008 and to undergo their sentence and deposit a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and the amount of Rs. 75,000/- shall be awarded as compensation to the injured Shangara Singh.
17. With these modifications, the present appeal is disposed of.