Bahadur Singh vs State of Punjab

Amar Dutt, J.

Bahadur Singh and 5 others have filed the present Cr. Rev. 587 of 1988 to challenge the judgment dated 31.5.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, upholding the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the JMIC, Nabha, on 17.7.1987. Harev Singh complainant being aggrieved by the sentences imposed, is seeking enhancement of the same through a Cr. Rev. 1136 of 1988. This judgment will dispose of both these revisions.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as have been brought out in the statements of the witnesses, are that on 25.8.1985 at 9.30 p.m. Hardev Singh son of Bhagwan Singh of Sangatpura and Bhim Singh son of Labha Singh of Hirdapur were ploughing the land of Niranjan Singh in village Ichhewal with a tractor. Bhagwan Singh was also present at the spot. When Amar Singh armed with a Gandasi, Bahadur Singh armed with a Sua, Harpal Singh armed with Kirpan, Kaka Singh armed with a Soti, Bakhshish Singh armed with a Soti and Joginder Kaur came there. These persons claimed that the land belonged to them and they would not allow Hardev Singh to plough the land. The witness told them that he had purchased the land and the petitioners had lost the suit in the civil Court, and therefore, he was entitled to plough the same. On hearing this, Amar Singh gave a blow with the gandasi which Hardev Singh, tried to ward off with his left hand and had suffered injuries on his left thumb. Bahadur Singh had then given a blow with the Sua on the right wrist and Harpal Singh gave a Kirpan blow on his left knee. Kaka Singh had given a soti blow on the right pindli and Bakhshish Singh gave him a blow with his soti on his left thigh. Joginder Kaur had raised Lalkaras exhorting her companions to kill him. When Bhagwan Singh came forward to save Hardev Singh, all the five armed persons had given injuries to him also. They had then given injuries to Bhim Singh and the noise raised by the injured persons attracted Gurmail Singh who had tried to save them. The accused had then gone away and Hardev Singh went to the police station with the other injured persons and lodged a report. According to him the motive for attack was a civil litigation and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of 28 bighas of land. Thereafter the injured were medically examined and on completion of investigation, a challan was put in against the petitioners. The trial Magistrate framed charges under Sections 148, 447, 323, 324, 326 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC against the petitioners, who in turn pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioners examined Gurdev Singh, Gurdial Singh and Kesar Singh in defence. The petitioners were convicted by the trial Magistrate on various counts and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. This decision did not satisfy the petitioner, hence the revision.

Hardev Singhcomplainant has filed a separate revision petition in which he has sought interference in the orders of the courts below. According to him this was a fit case in which after convicting the petitioners, they should have been asked to pay compensation to him on account of the injuries inflicted by them.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners has been assailed before me by the counsel for the petitioners only in relation to the findings recorded against Joginder Kaur. In support of his submissions, he sought to place reliance on the statement made by the investigating officer inasmuch as it exonerated Joginder Kaur to some extent of any active role in the crime committed by her copetitioners. This contention, I am afraid, is of no assistance to the case of Joginder Kaur because I fail to see how any observation made by the investigating officer can outweigh the testimony of the injured witnesses who have deposed categorically in relation to the role played by each of the petitioners. Faced with this situation Sh P.S. Kang, learned Counsel for the petitioners, reverted back to the basic submission that was advanced by him on behalf of the other petitioners i.e. prayer to the effect that keeping in view the fact that the incident related to the year 1985 and the petitioners have been through the agony of a protracted trial/appellate or revisional proceedings for the last 14 years, this was a fit case in which while upholding the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners, they should be released on probation for good conduct as no useful purpose would be served by carrying out the sentence imposed on them. Sending the petitioners to jail may open up wounds which were already healed in view of the fact that the parties have lived together peacefully after the conviction. This prayer has not been seriously opposed by the counsel for the complainant. He prays that while dealing with this prayer the Court should keep in mind the prayer made by his client for grant of compensation for the injuries suffered by the complainants.

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.

The incident in the present case took place on 28.8.1985 and the petitioners were convicted in 1987 and their appeal was dismissed on 31.5.1988. Since June 20, 1988 their revision petition has been pending in this Court. There is nothing on record to show nor has the counsel for the complainant make any complaint to the effect that the petitioners have, at any time, during the pendency of the trial, appeal and the revision misbehaved with the complainant party. Taking into consideration the fact that over 14 years have elapsed after the quarrel between the parties, it may be appropriate for the Court to avoid the opening of old wounds by sending the petitioners to jail to serve their sentences. The fact that the parties have not quarrelled with one another at any time after the incident, indicates that there is a distinct possibility of the petitioners redeeming themselves if given an opportunity to do so and no useful purpose would be served by forcing them to associate with the hardened criminals with whom they are likely to meet if sent to jail. Keeping all these considerations in view I think the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the petitioners are released on probation on the following conditions :

(i) that they furnish surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for keeping the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years.

(ii) they will surrender to undergo their sentences if called upon to do so within the above period.

On furnishing the surety bonds within a period of 2 months from today, the petitioners shall be released on probation for a period of 3 years.

Each of the petitioners shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ as compensation which will be payable to the complainant.

Both the revision petitions stands disposed of in the terms indicated above.

Revisions partly allowed.