Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009
Date of Decision:February 20, 2009
Hardev Kaur and others
---Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab
---Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr.S.S.Joshi,Advocate,
for the petitioners
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab
***
SABINA, J.
Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 323,
326/34 IPC of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) vide
judgment dated 20.5.2006. Vide order of even date passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence
under Section 323 and 323/34 IPC respectively and rigorous imprisonment
for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for offence under Section
326/34 IPC whereas petitioner No. 3 was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 200/- for an offence under
Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence
under Section 323/34IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {2}
concurrently.Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the
same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 15.12.2008. Hence, the present
revision petition.
Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate
Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:-
“The facts of the case, as unfolded by the records, are that
F.I.R. dated 20.9.2000 in this case was registered on the
statement of complainant/injured Amir Singh son of Bakar
Singh, Rai Sikh, resident of Bahader Ke, who made a statement
on 20.9.2000 that he is an agriculturist and on 11.9.2000 at
about 12.00 P.M. his daughter in law Ishra Bai went for storing
cow dung on rorhi, situated in Garhian. Then Hardev Kaur
who had earlier tried to restrain her from storing cow dung
raised a lalkara by saying that Ishra Bai should not go scot free
and she should be taught a lesson for placing cow dung there.
In the meanwhile Paramjit Kaur d/o Hardev Kaur w/o Jagir
Singh armed with Gandhala and Shinda s/o Jangir Singh armed
with dang came there. When he came out from his house then
Paramjit Kaur attacked with her Gandhala on the left portion of
his nose and Shinda attacked with his Dang on his left shoulder
and the complainant fell down on the ground. Thereafter
Hardev Kaur gave him kicks and also threatened to kill him. In
the meanwhile Amro w/o Bhajan Singh and his son Harbans
Singh reached at the site of occurrence and rescued the
complainant from the clutches of the accused. The motive
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {3}
behind the quarrel is that there is a dispute regarding the
Shamlat land for using it for the purpose of storing garbage and
Hardev Kaur has illegally encroached the Shamlat Land and
also constructed a cattle shed. The injured was removed to
Civil Hospital, Sidhwan. Bet by Harbans Singh and the efforts
are also made for the compromise. After recording the
statement the alleged FIR under Sections 325/326/34 I.P.C. has
been registered and investigation was taken into hand by ASI
Karnail Singh. Medical record was also collected from the
hospital and the opinion of doctor was also taken before
recording the statement of complainant. When the efforts were
not matured into compromise between the parties, then the
alleged statement of the complainant was recorded. The
accused were arrested in this case and the statement of
witnesses were recorded and after the completion of entire
investigation as envisaged under the Cr.P.C., the present
challan has been presented against the accused and thereafter
supplementary challan by placing accused Surinder Singh @
Chhinda in column No. 2 was also presented.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
prosecution had failed to prove its case. No reliance can be placed on the
testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Surinder Singh
-appellant had been declared innocent by the police during investigation.
Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the
entire witnesses had duly proved the prosecution case.
Occurrence in the present case had taken placed on 11.9. 2000
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {4}
at about 12-00 noon. PW-1, Dr. Manmohan Singh has proved the injuries
suffered by the injured-Amir Singh. As per him, during examination he
found that the injured had suffered two injuries i.e. one on his left
cheek/nose and the other on the left shoulder joint. Injury on the cheek/nose
was opined to have been caused with a sharp weapon and was declared
grievous in nature whereas injury No. 2 was opined to have been caused
with a blunt weapon and was declared to be simple in nature. Complainant
while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed as per the
contents of the FIR. PW-3 Harbans Singh has duly corroborated the
statement of PW-2 with regard to the manner of occurrence. DW-1-Amar
Kaur has deposed that no occurrence, as alleged, has taken place. Injuries
on the person of Amir Singh were self suffered and he has been falsely
involved the petitioners in this case. DW-2, Ujjagar Singh also deposed that
the petitioners had not inflicted any injury on the person of injured Amir
Singh.
So far as Hardev Kaur-petitioner is concerned, she is alleged to
have raised a lalkara and was empty handed and has allegedly given kick
blows on the person of the injured. However, from the medical evidence, it
is evident that the injured had suffered only two injuries i.e. one on the
cheek/nose and the other on left shoulder joint. He did not complaint of
pain at any other place due to kick blows. The possibility that Hardev Kaur
has thus, been falsely involved in this case, cannot be ruled out and hence,
she is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against her by giving her
the benefit of doubt. However, so far as petitioners No. 2 and 3-Surinder
Singh and Paramjit Kaur are concerned, the prosecution had been successful
in proving its case. As per the eye witness account, Paramjit Kaur-
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {5}
petitioner
No. 3 had given a gandhala blow on the nose of the injured-Amir Singh
whereas petitioner No. 1 -Surinder Singh had given a dang blow on the left
shoulder of the injured. The said eye witness account is duly corroborated
the medical evidence. As per Doctor Manmohan Singh-PW-1, injury No. 1
can be caused by gandhala as it was having a curve shape. From the
medical evidence there is nothing to suggest that injuries on the person of
Amir Singh could be self suffered. Hence, the witnesses examined by the
petitioners in defence fail to rebut the testimony of the eye witnesses with
regard to the manner of occurrence.
In these circumstances, the court below had rightly convicted
and sentenced the petitioners Surinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur for an
offence under Sections 326, 323/341 IPC. However, the sentence of
imprisonment as ordered by the courts below under Section 326 IPC is
liable to be reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Petitioner No. 1-
Hardev Kaur is acquitted of the charge framed against her and judgments of
the courts below whereby she was convicted and sentenced under Section
323, 326/34 IPC are set aside. So far as Petitioners Surinder Singh and
Paramjit Kaur are concerned, their conviction under Section 323, 326 IPC is
maintained. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 IPC is
reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three to rigorous imprisonment for
two years. The sentence qua fine under Section 326 IPC and sentence qua
Crl. Revision No. 60 of 2009 {6}
imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC are maintained.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
February 20, 2009
PARAMJIT