Charan Singh & ors. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Charan Singh, Sadhu Singh and Bawa Singh were brought to trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist, Class, Moga, under Sections 326/324/32334, Indian Penal Code and having been found guilty thereof, Charan Singh was substantively convicted under section 326, Indian Penal Code and his coaccused Sadhu Singh and Bawa Singh under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/. Sadhu Singh and Charan Singh were also convicted under Section 324 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code and Bawa Singh under Sections 324/34 and 323, Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each under each count, with the direction that the substantive sentences so awarded to them shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, after elaborately appraising the evidence upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved they have now come up by way of revision.

The motive for the crime is stated to be that about 4/5 days prior to the present occurrence, one calf belonging to Bawa Singh accused entered the house of the complainant Nihal Singh and it was turned out by his wife Gurdev Kaur. On that Ranjit Kaur wife of the said accused came to the house of the complainant party and there was an exchange of hot words between the wives of Nihal Singh complainant and Bawa Singh accused. It is said that on the same night. Bawa Singh come in front of the house of the complainant and abused him and threatened to take revenge.

The prosecution case is that on 19th October, 1976, Nihal Singh complainant was present in his fields to guard the maize crop. He was to get his meals in the fields. When he did not receive his evening meals, he left for his house to take his meals. At about 8 p.m. when he reached the circular road of the village where his wife Gurdev Kaur and daughter Bindro met him. They were coming to the fields to deliver his meals. They were having a burning Lantern with them. Nihal Singh took his meals from them and started back towards his fields. When he had gone about 4/5 karams from that place, all the 3 accused armes with gandasa, tak and stick emerged in front of him. On seeing Nihal Singh, P.W., Bawa Singh raised a Lalkara that he would not allow him to go scot free. Charan Singh then opened the attack by giving a gandasa blow to him which was warded off by him with his hands and he sustained an injury on his middle finger of the right hand. Charan Singh and Sadhu Singh gave one blow each with their respective weapons on the head of Nihal Singh followed by Bawa Singh who gave two stick blows to him on his left shoulder and back. Gurdev Kaur and Bindro raised alarm, on hearing which Hakumat Singh was attracted to the spot and he also witnesses the occurrence. Thereafter, all the 3 accused bolted away with their respective weapons. The injured was firstly removed to his house and from there, he was sent to the hospital at Patto Hira Singh, where he was medically examined by Dr. Dharminder Singh, who found the following injuries or his person.

An incised wound 5 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on the scalp, 15 cms from the root of the nose 7.5 cms from the upper end of the left ear. Fresh bleeding was present.

An incised wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on the scalp 11 cms from the upper end of left ear, 24 cms from the root of the nose. Fresh bleeding was present.

An incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm present on the middle finger of the right hand on the dorsal surface. Wound was extending from the middle to the distal phalanx. In the proximal half of the wound, bone was cut. In the distal half, the cut was through and through and the nail had been removed. Fresh bleeding was present.

A contused swelling 11 cm x 12 cm present on the upper part of the back on the left side extending from the left scapula to midline Colour of the contusion was reddish and Xray was advised.

A contused swelling 6 cm x 2 cm present on the top of left shoulder. Colour of the contusion was reddish.

Injury No. 3 was stated to be grievous while the rest were simple in nature, having been caused with a sharp edged and blunt weapons. On receipt of the medicolegal report of Nihal Singh, SubInspector Baldev Singh went to the hospital and recorded his statement on the following day at 5.50 a.m. on the basis of which the first information report was recorded in the police station. The accused were arrested. After necessary investigation, they were sent up for trial.

The case of the prosecution is supported by Nihal Singh injured, PW 2 and Bindro P.W. 3. The accused pleaded innocence and examined Hakumat Singh in defence. This witness was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused.

Mr. H.S. Mann, appearing for the petitioners, is unable to assail the testimony of the eye witnesses. The attack on behalf of the petitioners has been rather peripheral. It has been contended that there was about 14 hours delay in lodging the first information report with the police which remained unexplained on the part of the prosecution and was fatal to this case. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is misconceived. The occurrence took place at about 8 p.m. and immediately thereafter, the injured was removed to his house and from there he was taken to hospital at Patto Hira Singh where he was medically examined by the doctor at about 1.30 a.m. On receipt of the copy of the medicolegal report of the injured, SubInspector Baldev Singh went to the hospital and recorded his statement at about 5.50 a.m. There is no doubt that the police station was at a distance of about 4 miles from the place of occurrence but neither the wife nor the daughter of the injured could go to the police station to lodge the report on account of fear of the accused. Moreover, the injured had sustained some injuries on his person and as such the anxiety of his relatives was to take care of the injured than to lodge the report to the police. Even if there is some delay in the lodging of the first information report, but in the circumstances it has not at all contributed to the false implication of the petitioners in the crime or the false introduction of any person as eyewitness to the occurrence.

The next contention was with regard to the sentence imposed on the petitioners by the Courts below. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the occurrence took place about 7 years ago. There is scope for reduction in the sentence keeping in view that they have gone through protracted trial since 1976 and they have been on bail since September 30, 1981. They have also undergone 20 days imprisonment, I, therefore, reduce their sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by them under all the counts but impose a fine of Rs. 500/ on each of the petitioners under Ss. 326 and 32634, IPC in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court, as I feel, that in the circumstances it would meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 months each. The fine, if realized, whole of it shall be paid to Nihal Singh as compensation.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.