Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Sucha Singh, who is a boy of about ten years, and sentenced to undergo 11/2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first count, while one year''s rigorous imprisonment on the second count by the trial Court. Both the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar Feeling aggrieved from the said order, he has filed this revision petition from jail contending that the father of the injured himself caused injuries to Sucha Singh and falsely involved him in this case.

In brief, the prosecution case is that a day prior to the occurrence, Avtar Singh father of the injured had restrained the accused from demolisating the common ridge between their fields. On 8th June, 1984, at about 6.00 A.M. Sucha Singh was going to his fields for serving tea to his father. The accused attacked him with spade when he reached near his fields, the accused gave one injury on his head and two on his right shoulder. Avtar Singh father of the injured and Mangta were working in the near by fields and saw the entire occurrence The accused ran away with the spade on being challenged by these witnesses. The injured was removed to the hospital, where Dr Baljit Singh Uppal medically examined him and found an incised wound on the right side of the neck and two wounds on the back of the right shoulder. The injury on the front of the right shoulder was declared grievous in nature as Dr. C.L Thukral detected fracture of acromian end of the clevical under sk gram Ex. P. W 5/24.

The doctor sent intimation to the police of the admission of the injured. but the police. failed to contact the injured in the hospital. There were efforts for reconciliation between the parties with the intervention of the Panchayat but when these efforts ended in smoke, the matter was reported to the police after 22 days of the occurrence, i. e on 27th June, 1984.

I have perused the record, besides hearing the arguments raised by Miss Nirmaljit Kaur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

No doubt, there is 22 days'' delay in lodging the first information report, but it being a case of single accused the same in itself would not prove fatal in this case as the theory of complete substitution of the accused is unknown to the Criminal Jurisprudence. The injured or his father would be the last persons to absolve the real culprit and implicate the accused falsely. The version of the accused that Sucha Singh had received injuries with the blade of a fodder cutting machine being belated, was rightly discarded by the trial Court, as well as by the Appellate Court. Moreover, the accused was bound to agitate his false implication before the higher Authorities if at all the boy had received injuries with the blade of the fodder cutting machine. Strange enough, it was not elicited from Dr. Baljit Singh that the injuries could be caused with such a blade. The presence of three injuries on the head, on the top of the right shoulder and in front of the right shoulder also rule out the possibility of the injuries having been suffered due to the dislodging of the blade of the fodder cutting machine, as in that case only one injury would have been caused. Sucha Singh, a small boy hardly of 10 years would not share the enmosity of his father towards the accused. The evidence of Sucha Singh injured and of his father Avtar Singh was rightly found reliable by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court, as there was no infirmity in their version. The presence of Avtar Singh in the nearby fields was rightly believed being natural and probable, especially when the injured was going to the fields for serving tea to this witness.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no justification for interfering with the concurrent finding of the trial Court, as well as of the Appellate Court, except that the awarding of one year''s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not justifiable as it is a minor offence than the one under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the same is set aside. It cannot be said that the sentence of 1/12 years'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months is on the higher side for an offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed but for the modification in sentence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as indicated above. Steps be taken for the rearrest of the petitioner for undergoing the remaining portion of the sentence.