Ajit Ram @ Ajit Singh vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Bains, J. (Oral)

The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, vide his judgment and order dated 8th October, 1982, convicted Jit Ram alias Ajit Singh under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/ or in default of payment of fine, to undergo father RI for two months, and Ishar Ram petitioner and Ravi Kumar under section 326 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo four months RI and a fine of Rs. 100/ each, or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month each. On appeal, Ravi Kumar was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The conviction of Jit Ram alias Ajit Singh under section 326 and that of Ishar Ram petitioner under section 326 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, was upheld, and Jit Ram was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and a fine of Rs. 300/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months, whereas Ishar Ram was sentenced to R.I. for one month and a fine of Rs. 200/, on default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. They have challenged their conviction and sentence by way of this petition.

The case as set up at the trial was that on 19th April, 1981, at about 8 p.m. Bahadur Singh complainant went to the shop of Rattan Chand of his village, Bhambowal, for purchasing cigarette. When he reached near the shop, Ishar Ram petitioner armed with `Drat,'' Jit Singh alias Jit Ram petitioner also armed with `Drat'' and Ravi Kumar (acquitted accused) empty handed, were standing in the street opposite to the shop of Rattan Chand. On seeing him, Jit Singh petitioner raised a lalkara that the complainant should be caught and taught a lesson in respect of the marriage. Thereupon, Ishar Ram petitioner and Ravi Kumar took the complainant in their grips and Jit Singh alias Jit Ram petitioner gave a `Drat'' blow which hit on his right forearm. Bahadur Singh complainant raised noise `Marditta'' Marditta'', on hearing of which Darshan Ram and Sandhoor Singh P.Ws came to the spot. On seeing them, the petitioners and their acquitted coaccused decamped with their respective weapons. Gandharab Singh, father of the complainant, brought him to Hajipur Hospital in a tractortrolly, but since the doctor was not available, he took him to Mukerian Civil Hospital, where he was got admitted and medicolegally examined. On the statement Exhibit PA of the complainant, formal F.I.R. Exhibit PW5/C was recorded under section 324, Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on the basis of the Xray report about the injury on the person of Bahadur Singh complainant which was opined to be grievous, the offence was changed to one under section 326 Indian Penal Code.

Dr. S.K. Jhanji P.W.7 medicolegally examined Bahadur Singh complainant at 12 : 15 (00 : 15) a.m on 20th April, 1981, and found one incised wound on his right forearm, which was kept under observation and report subject to Xray of the forearm and on its receipt, declared the same as grievous as per his report Exhibit PW7/B.

At the trial, the petitioners denied the prosecution allegations and produced Dr. Harbans Singh D.W. 1 and Malkiat Singh DW 2 in defence.

Bahadur Singh complainant P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution version as given in the earlier part of the judgment. According to him, Jit Ram alias Ajit Singh gave him the stab injury and his coaccused Ishar Ram and Ravi Kumar held him in their grips. Only one injury was caused to him. In my view, Ishar Ram petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of doubts as the same part i.e. holding the complainant Bahadur Singh in the grip, as was ascribed to Ravi Kumar, who was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has been attributed to him. It is ordered accordingly.

In case of Jit Ram alias Ajit Singh, the offence would not fall within the mischief of section 326 of the Code but the same would fall under section 324 of the Code as the Xray report did not disclose any fracture of radius and ulna of forearm. The injury was kept under observation and was declared grievous on the ground that he remained in the hospital for more than 20 days. There is no evidence that he suffered severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during that period. Accordingly Jit Ram petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 326 I.P.C. and his conviction and sentence is set aside. He is, however, convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC.

There is nothing on the record to show that Jit Ram alias Ajit Singh is a previous convict. He was about 21 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. He has undergone about 22 days of his substantive sentence of imprisonment. In my view, ends of justice would be amply met if instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, he is released on probation. It is ordered accordingly and directed that he shall be released on probation on his entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during this period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. It is further directed that Jit Ram petitioner will pay Rs. 500/ (five hundred only) as compensation to Bahadur Singh, P.W. (injured), who be informed.

In the result the petition qua Ishar Ram is allowed. His conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below are set aside. The fine, if already paid, be refunded to him. Petition qua Jit Ram partly succeeds as indicated above.