JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Darshan Singh along with his two sons Sukhdev Singh and Baljinder Singh was nominated as accused in case FIR No. 76 dated 29.8.1990 registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Sohan Singh son of Nazar Singh. Sohan Singh was admitted in the hospital when Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh reached Civil Hospital, Dhianpur and recorded statement of Sohan Singh. Sohan Singh has stated that on 28.8.1990, Darshan Singh along with his two sons was calling the names of petitioner in front of their house. Sukhdev Singh was said to be armed with Kirpan. Baljinder Singh was said to be armed with dattar and Darshan Singh was said to be armed with a dang. It is further stated that at 7.30 AM in the morning the complainant was passing nearby when Darshan Singh accused raised a lalkara and on his exhortation, Sukhdev Singh gave a kirpan blow which landed on the front side near the knee joint of left leg of Sohan Singh. Baljinder Singh gave a dattar blow, which caused injury on his left shoulder. Darshan Singh gave two dang blows on the back and mouth of Sohan Singh. On the noise raised by Sohan Singh, his wife Parkash Kaur was attracted to the spot and came forward to rescue him. Then Darshan Singh gave two dang blows on the left arm near wrist and on the left shoulder of Parkash Kaur. Harbans Singh and Bawa Singh of the village, who were present, came forward to rescue the injured from the accused. The accused said to have decamped from the spot along with their weapons. The injured were admitted in the hospital where the statement of complainant was recorded.
3. After the FIR, challan was submitted. Charge was framed against the accused/petitioner under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Prosecution examined injured Sohan Singh as PW.1, Parkash Kaur as PW.2 along with Bawa Singh as PW.3, who was attracted to the spot. Dr. Kishan Chand PW.4 had done the medicolegal examination and PW.5 Inspector Raghbir Singh was Investigating Officer.
5. Both the Courts below came to conclusion that since Sohan Singh PW.1 Parkash Kaur PW.2 were the injured witnesses, their presence on the spot cannot be doubted as they were stamped at the time of occurrence. The Courts have further come to conclusion that the injured witnesses will be the last persons to falsely implicate or substitute the assailants. Since the message was sent from the hospital to the Police Station, therefore, the delay was not taken into consideration.
6. Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the petitioners, as detailed below:
S. Name of Accused Under Section Sentence
No. Offence
1 Sukhdev Singh 326 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one
yearand to pay fine of
Rs. 500/-in default of paymentof fine
he shall further undergo
R.I. for a period of six months.
2 Sukhdev Singh 324/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of
Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of
fine he shall further undergo
R.I. for a period of one months.
3 Sukhdev Singh 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
six months.
4 Baljinder Singh 324 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
nine months and pay a sum of
Rs. 200/-as fine. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further
undergo RI for a period of four
months.
5 Baljinder Singh 326/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
six months and to pay a sum of
Rs. 100/-as fine. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further
undergo R.I. for a period of 2
months.
6 Baljinder Singh 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
six months
7 Darshan Singh 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
six months.
8 Darshan Singh 326/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months
and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In
default of payment of fine he
shall further undergo R.I. for 2
months.
9 Darshan Singh 324/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of
six months and to pay a fine of
Rs. 50/-. In default of fine, he
shall further undergo R.I. for a
period of one month.
7. Aggrieved against the same petitioners had filed an appeal and the same was decided by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur acquitted Sukhdev Singh of offence under Section 326 IPC and Baljinder Singh and Darshan Singh of offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
8. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners only remained under Section 324 IPC. Baljinder Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 324 IPC. Darshan Singh was sentenced under Section 324 read with 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sentence of Sukhdev Singh was also converted into Section 324 IPC but no specific sentence in the appeal has been awarded.
9. Be as it may, in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1990. A period of about 18 years is going to lapse. Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, assisting Mr. H.S.Riar, learned senior counsel has stated that in the last 18 years no untoward incident has taken place. There is complete peace in the village. Mr. Riar has submitted that in case petitioners are sent behind the bars at this stage, it may disturb the peace, amity and harmony maintained between the parties, in the village.
10. I find merit in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have suffered protracted trial for about 18 years and even otherwise they were convicted under Section 324 IPC for which they were sentenced for nine months and six months, respectively.
11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months provided they will furnish bonds to this effect to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-qua each accused and the same shall be converted into cost of litigation.
12. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off.