Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.629-SB of 1995
Date of decision: 15.7.2008
Gurdial Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. O.P. Dabla, AAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J (oral).
This case was registered on statement Ex.PC made before
the police by one Ajit Singh, who alleged that on 23.9.1992 at about 4.00
P.M., Onkar Singh Patwari and Tilak Raj Girdawar were supervising the
demarcation work of Village Phirni of Village Singhpur and they were
present near the house of Hardial Singh and Gurdial Singh. These two
had their joint house in a portion of the Phirni and the Phirni was found
to be encroached by about 32 inches. When Ajit Singh was present
there, an altercation took place as both Gurdial Singh and Hardial Singh
hurled abuses at him and alleged that Ajit Singh wanted to demolish their
house. Gurdial Singh gave a Kassi blow from the sharp-edged side
which hit Ajit Singh on his head and Hardial Singh also gave a Kassi
Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 2
blow but from its blunt side, which hit Ajit Singh on his left shoulder.
Ajit Singh fell down. Thereafter, Baljit Singh and Harbhej Singh gave
Dang blows on his back and head. Ajit Singh thus raised alarm and cried
for help. He was saved by Labh Singh and Dhani Ram Chowkidar. He
was taken to the hospital at Hajipur where he was medico-legally
examined by Dr. Shavinder Singh Mathon who found five injuries on the
person of Ajit Singh.
On 23.9.1992, the doctor did not find Ajit Singh in a fit
condition to make a statement. However, he was declared fit and
allowed to make the statement on 24.9.1992. Then ASI Ram Chand
recorded the statement of Ajit Singh Ex.PC, which was read over to him
and after admitting it to be correct, Ajit Singh signed it. This statement
became the basis of the FIR which was recorded as Ex. PC/2. Thereafter,
investigation of the matter was started. ASI Ram Chand prepared a site
plan and obtained bloodstained samples of earth from the place of
occurrence. He also took into possession bloodstained clothes of Ajit
Singh vide memo Ex.PE. On interrogation, accused Gurdial Singh made
disclosure statement Ex.PL and the Kassi Ex.P7 was recovered from his
paddy field. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PM. Thereafter, Hardial Singh and Harbhej Singh accused were also
arrested on 5.10.1992. The bloodstained clothes were sent to Chemical
Examiner for analysis and report Ex. PO was received. After completion
of investigation, the challan against the accused was put up in the
Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 3
competent Court.
The accused were charged for the offences under Sections
307/323/34 Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case examined six
witnesses and produced the affidavit of one MHC Kanwarjit Singh as
Ex.PR and closed its evidence. The defence did not produce any
evidence. It, however, contested the case on various grounds. However,
the trial Court came to the conclusion that Gurdial Singh was guilty of
having committed offence under Section 324 IPC and convicted him
under the said Section only. He was acquitted of rest of the charges. All
other accused were acquitted. Accused Gurdial Singh was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in
default whereof he would further undergo imprisonment for six months.
In the present appeal Gurdial Singh has challenged the
judgment dated 7.10.1995, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur whereby he was convicted and sentenced.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
A.A.G. Punjab for the State.
Learned counsel for the accused has, inter alia, contended
that there was no encroachment shown in the Phirni near the house of the
accused party. Thus, the entire story was made up as no motive could be
attributed for the occurrence. He also tried to impeach the credibility of
Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 4
the witnesses particularly Labh Singh. According to him, Labh Singh
was not reliable witness in view of his past record. He also urged that
medical evidence was not corroborating the ocular version. He further
stated that no fracture was found on the person of Ajit Singh and that the
injury on the head of Ajit Singh was only described as simple injury
under Section 324 IPC.
The learned A.A.G., Punjab has, however, contended that
there was ample evidence on record to bring home guilt of the accused.
According to him, serious injuries had been caused in the altercation and
the findings of conviction as well as sentence, arrived at by the Court
below, deserve to be maintained.
I have carefully scrutinized the evidence. The prosecution
examined Dr. Vajinder Singh as PW1 and Dr. Shavinder Singh Mathon
as PW4. PW4 when stepped into the witness-box, proved the medico-
legal report Ex. PF, according to which one injury on the head of Ajit
Singh was found to be dangerous to life.
According to the prosecution, this medical evidence
supported the statement of the injured Ajit Singh who deposed as PW2.
Another corroboration in this regard came from Labh Singh who
appeared for the prosecution as PW3. The evidence of Tilak Raj
Girdawar Halqa, who appeared as PW5 and ASI Ram Chand, who
appeared as PW6, has also been perused. After careful scrutiny of the
entire evidence, I am of the view that the injury No.1 on the head of Ajit
Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 5
Singh could not be said to be dangerous to life as there was no fracture
and it did not lead to long hospitalization of Ajit Singh. In fact, the
occurrence took place on 23.9.1992 and on 24.9.1992, the doctor
declared Ajit Singh fit to make a statement by his endorsement Ex. PH/1,
on an application Ex.PH moved by the police.
I, therefore, cannot find any fault with the impugned
judgment. The accused Gurdial Singh has been rightly convicted under
Section 324 IPC.
However, while addressing on the question of sentence, the
learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the accused is
now almost 73 years of age and the occurrence is related to the year
1993. He had undergone a lengthy trial and had also been incarcerated
for more than a month. His appeal before this Court has been pending
since 1995. According to the counsel for the appellant, the accused is
not keeping good health also.
The factum of the accused having been in jail for a month or
so is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State.
Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances over the
matter, I deem it fit to reduce the sentence of the accused to that already
undergone by him. However, in view of the fact that he attacked a
neighbour and caused injuries to him, the fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-
which shall be disbursed to the injured Ajit Singh or next of his kin, if he
is not alive.
Crl. Appeal No.629 -SB of 1995 6
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, sentence is
reduced in the aforesaid terms.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
July 15, 2008
‘rajpal’