Bant Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

In case FIR No. 153 dated 22.10.1984 under Sections 325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Samrala, District Ludhiana. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala convicted Bant Singh, Nahar Singh, Sohan Singh and Nirmal Singh under Sections 325, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as follows :

Under Section 325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ each or in default of payment of fine to under go further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

Under Section 325/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/ each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

Sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively.

Not satisfied with the judgment and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11/12.11.1986, Bant Singh and others went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 2.11.1987 maintained their conviction as well as sentence but with the modification that the sentences awarded to them shall run concurrently and not consecutively. Out of the fine, as and when recovered, Rs. 5,000/ shall be paid to the injured Ram Partap by way of compensation.

Having felt that they have been unjustly convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana while maintaining their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate, they have come up in revision to this Court.

Prosecution case in brief is that Ram Partap PW was in possession of shamlat land measuring 62 kanals which adjoins his land measuring 5 kilas for the last about 20 years and he was in self cultivating possession of that land. Lands of Bant Singh and Nirmal Singh also adjoin the said shamlat land measuring 62 kanals. Out of the said land measuring 62 kanals, Bant Singh was laying claim to 8/9 kanals of land while Nirmal Singh was laying claim to 20 kanals of land. They wanted to possess 8/9 kanals and 20 kanals of land respectively. They had filed civil suits also in the Court of Sub Judge, Samrala with regard to the said claim. Court had given stay of dispossession in favour of Ram partap. On 22.10.1984 after the hearing in the civil suit filed by Nirmal Singh was over, Ram Partap and his son Avtar Singh were going to Anaj Mandi on Chawa Road, Samrala. In front of Gurdwara Chowk, Gurdial Singh and Sardara Singh met them. They also started going with them towards Anaj Mandi on Chawa Road, Samrala. Ram Partap was ahead while his son was little behind. Gurdial Singh and Sardara Singh were still little behind. When Ram Partap reached in front of Sharma Tent House on the Khanna Road a little ahead of Ram Mandi Gate, accused Bant Singh, Nahar Singh, Sohan Singh and Nirmal Singh armed with iron rods met him. On seeing Ram Partap, Bant Singh raised lalkara, "Ram Partap Aa Gaya Hai, Phar Lo Aj Aey Bach Ke Na Jaye". Nirmal Singh hit Ram Partap with iron rod on the front upper part of the left leg. Sohan Singh hit Ram partap with his rod on the front upper part of the left leg. Ram Partap then fell down. Bant Singh hit Ram Partap near the left ankle joint. Thereafter, Nahar Singh hit Ram Partap with rod on the left hand. Nirmal Singh again hit Ram Partap near the wrist joint of left hand. Sohan Singh again hit Ram Partap on the back side of his head. Bant Singh also again hit Ram Partap on the right elbow joint. All the accused then caused more injuries to Ram Partap with their rods. Sardara Singh and Avtar Singh raised alarm "Na MaroNa Maro". Accused then ran away with their respective weapons. Avtar Singh took Ram Partap to Civil Hospital, Samrala in a Rickshaw, where he was medicolegally examined by Dr. P.K. Bansal, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Samrala, who found as many as 15 injuries on the body of Ram Partap. Doctor found that injuries No. 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13 and 15 were grievous. Injury No. 1 was also declared grievous after xray examination. Case was registered on the statement of Ram Partap Ex. PA. After investigation, Bant Singh and others were challaned.

Bant Singh was charged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, while the remaining accused were charged under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Nahar Singh accused was charged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, while the remaining accused were charged under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sohan Singh accused was charged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, while the remaining accused were charged under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Nirmal Singh accused was charged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining accused were charged under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

Bant Singh and Nirmal Singhpetitioners are dead. Their death took place during the pendency of this revision. So, this revision abates qua them. Revision now survives only so far as Nahar Singh and Sohan Singhpetitioners are concerned.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the injuries found by the doctor on the person of Ram Partap PW are lacerated wounds and bruises. They are the result of blunt weapon. They could have been authored by one assailant only and therefore implication of one or other assailant falsely cannot be ruled out. Suffice it to say this argument is based on surmises and conjectures. Doctor found as many as 15 injuries on the person of Ram Partap PW. These injuries could not have been authored by one assailant as with Ram Partap PW, Avtar Singh PW2 and Sardara Singh PW3 were also there. In the presence of Avtar Singh and Sardara Singh PWs, dealing of so many blows on the person of Ram Partap PW by one assailant could not be possible. Ram Partap PW was medicolegally examined on 22.10.1984 at 12.05 p.m. Matter was reported to ASI Ram Murti in Civil Hospital, Samrala by Ram Partap PW vide statement Ex.PA on 22.10.1984. There is no delay in the reporting of the matter to the police. Occurrence took place at about 11.30 a.m. Medical examination took place at about 12.00 noon and the statement Ex.PA was recorded by ASI Ram Murti at 2.45 p.m.

It has next been submitted that Baisakha Singh DW.1 was present at the spot as it was he who had taken Ram Partap injured to the hospital and his name finds mention in the medicolegal report Ex. PB recorded by Dr. P.K. Bansal. It has been submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve him. Court should keep PWs and DWs at par so far as appreciation is concerned. Baisakha Singh DW.2 stated that about two years ago, he was coming along Khanna road. Ram Partap was being injured by two persons, who ran away. Accused are not his assailants. He saw the assailants of Ram Partap from their back. They had run away before he arrived at the spot. He brought Avtar Singh PW on the asking of Ram Partap. Suffice it to say if Baisakha Singh DW.1 has played foul with the prosecution and has suppressed the truth, Court is not bound to accept what he has stated.

It has next been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if Avtar Singh had been present at the spot, his presence would have been noted by Dr. P.K. Bansal who medicolegally examined the injured. Suffice it to say, Avtar Singh also figures in the medicolegal report.

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that litigation had ended in favour of the accused and, therefore, there was no motive on their part for causing injuries to Ram Partap. Suffice it to say, assuming that litigation had ended in favour of the accused, the venom might have still been there in their mind.

Faced with this position, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they should be released on probation of good conduct. Suffice it to say the interest of justice does not demand their release on probation of good conduct. Doctor has found as many as 15 injuries on the person of Ram Partap, out of which 8 were grievous injuries. Ram Partap was an old man of 60 years during those days. He was beaten to the pulp. Petitioners did not have even scant regard for the age of Ram Partap. To, Nirmal Singh blow on the front side of the left leg of Ram Partap with iron rod was attributed. To Sohan Singh, blow with iron rod on the front upper part of the left leg of Ram Partap was attributed. To Bant Singh, blow with iron rod near the left ankle joint of Ram Partap was attributed. To Nahar Singh, blow with iron rod on the left hand of Ram Partap was attributed. To Nirmal Singh, blow with iron rod near the wrist joint of left hand of Ram Partap was attributed. To Sohan Singh, blow with iron rod on the back side of head of Ram Partap was attributed. To Bant Singh blow with iron rod near the right elbow of Ram Partap was attributed. Apart from these injuries other injuries were also attributed to the accused cumulatively without any specification as to which injury was caused by which accused. Infliction of 15 injuries on an old man of 60 years by Bant Singh etc., put of which 8 are grievous brings out how callous and inhuman they were.

Although the sentence imposed by the Courts below is not excessive yet sentence imposed upon them requires to be slashed to some extent as petitioners have been suffering the vagaries of the criminal trial for the last 13/14 years. For all these years they have suffered mental agony. This criminal trial has been hanging on their head like a democlean sword. Right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of accused. If the Court is unable to assure speedy trial to the accused, Court should atleast take this fact into account while awarding sentence that they have suffered the vagaries of the criminal trial for quite sometime. Sentence imposed upon the petitioners Nahar Singh and Sohan Singh is, therefore, brought down to 2 years rigorous imprisonment on each count i.e. under Sections 325 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine is, however, enhanced to Rs. 5,000/ each on each account or in default of payment of fine, defaulting accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Sentences shall run concurrently. Entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Ram Partap incurred PW, if he be dead to his heirs.

Subject to the above modification in the sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revisioon dismissed.