Anokh Singh vs The State of Punjab

Harbans Lal, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19 2.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur whereby he reduced the sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to nine months rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon the

accused-petitioner, Anokh Singh u/s 324 of IPC and dismissed his appeal preferred against the judgment/order of sentence dated 9.3.2000

rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira, whereby Anokh Singh accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 324 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 323 read with Section 34 of

IPC though his co-accused Mangal Singh was released on probation of good conduct.

Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that Tarlok Singh son of Chur Singh resident of Makhu Road, Zira made statement before the

police in the terms that on 25.6.1994 around 6:30 a.m., he accompanied by his son-in-law Gurnam Singh had gone to his fields near Mojhdin for

irrigating fodder crop. When they were busy in watering the crop, meanwhile, his younger brother Anokh Singh duly armed with gandasa and

Mangal Singh son of Anokh Singh holding dang came near the electric motor, where he was standing. They made an attempt to switch off the

electric motor by exhorting that they be not allowed to irrigate the fields. They also came forward along with respective weapons. When he (Tarlok

Singh) tried to beat a retreat, Mangal Singh delivered a dang blow, which rested on the left forehead. On being raised alarm, Gurnam Singh was

attracted to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, Anokh Singh wielded gandasa blow. To ward off the same, he raised his hands. The blow landed

on thumb of his left hand. Mangal Singh gave another dang blow which hit his (Tarlok Singh) left eye-brow. On receipt of the injuries, he fell down

on the ground. Both the accused decamped from the spot along with their respective weapons. The motive behind the occurrence was that Tarlok

Singh injured was having a dispute with his younger brother Anokh Singh in relation to the partition of the joint property and thus, he nursed a

grudge against him and due to that the accused persons pursuant to their common intention, caused injuries to him. Tarlok Singh was rushed to

Civil Hospital, Zira, where he was medico legally examined. On the basis of his statement, the case was registered. The accused was arrested.

After comletion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira for trial of the accused.

The accused were charged u/s 326/324 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt

against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Charanjit Singh PW1, Tarlok Singh injured PW2, Gurnam Singh PW3, Ajaib Singh ASI PW4

and closed its evidence. When examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C, both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution

evidence against them and pleaded false implication as well as innocence. They did not adduce evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced

Anokh Singh accused as noted at the outset and released his co-accused Mangal Singh on probation of good conduct. Feeling aggrieved with his

conviction/sentence Anokh Singh accused went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur

by modifying the order of sentence as noticed at the outset. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with his conviction/sentence, he has filed this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the conviction in any manner. He has submitted that the petitioner being in the evening of

his life, his sentence may be reduced to the already undergone.

I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. On appraisal of the prosecution evidence, it transpires that no holes can be

picked in the findings returned by both the Courts below in recording the conviction. Consequently, no interference is warranted therein and thus,

the Conviction is upheld. As recorded in the judgment rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, the age of the

petitioner was 65 years. By now, he has turned up septuagenarian. The petitioner Anokh Singh has been facing the agony of trial since 1994. So,

this incidence is more than 14 years old. As per the custody certificate, he has undergone four months and one day of the actual sentence as on

15.4.2009. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009 (1) RCR 973 : 2009 (2) RAJ 6 (SC), the accused was convicted and

sentenced to 15 months'' rigorous imprisonment under Food Adulteration Act. The incident was 20 years old. The sentence was reduced to the

already undergone (one year). The petitioner while on bail, during pendency of this revision, did not make misuse of this liberty. In the peculiar

circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision is

disposed of.