Gurmit Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Two petitioners, namely Gurmit Singh and Harjit Singh along with their father Jaswant Singh were tried and convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh vide his order dated 12.1.1983. Vide order dated 15.1.1983 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced them as under :

Gurmit Singh U/s 326/34 IPC R.I. for one year eac

Harjit Singh and fine of Rs. 100/

Jaswant Singh each in default R.I.

Gurmit Singh for one months each.

Harjit Singh and .. ..

Jaswant Singh .. ..

do U/s 324/34 IPC R.I. for six months each.

do U/s 323/34 IPC R.I. for one month each.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide his order dated 21.3.1984 gave the benefit of doubt to Jaswant Singh and acquitted him of the charge while maintaining the conviction of Harjit Singh and Gurmit Singh petitioners. However, the learned lower Appellate Court reduced the sentence of Harjit Singh petitioner under 326/34 I.P.C. to one till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/, in default R.I. for there months. He, however, did not pass any separate sentence under section 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. As for as Gurmit Singh petitioner is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence from R.I. for one year to R.I. for six months under section 326/34 I.P.C. The conviction and sentence of Gurmit Singh petitioner under section 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. were however, maintained. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both these petitioners, namely Grumit Singh and Harjit Singh have come up in separate revision to this Court. Harjit Singh petitioner has filed Crl. R. 979 of 1984 while Gurmit Singh petitioner has filed Crl. R. No. 410 of 1984 against their conviction and sentence. Both these petitions would be disposed of by this very order.

Amarjit Singh injured PW 2 and Kirpal Singh PW1 were jointly running a transport known as M/s Dasmesh Transport Co. Transport Area, Chandigarh. On 13.5.1981 Gurmit Singh brought his truck No. PUR 3461 to Chandigarh Transport Area. There was some dispute about the commission to be paid by Gurmit Singh petitioner. There was exchange of hot words between Gurmit Singh and Amarjit Singh. Kirpal Singh PW 1 and Supinder Singh were also present there. At about 6.30 PM, the same evening Gurmit Singh and Harjit Singh petitioners and their coaccused Jaswant Singh came there armed. Gurmit Singh and Harjit Singh petitioners held Kirpal while their father was armed with a Lathi. They are alleged to have caused `injuries to Amarjit Singh PW2. Amarjit Singh PW was medically examined on the same day at 6.50 P.M. by Dr. Ashok Gupta PW 4 and three incised wounds and one linear abrasion were found on his person. Injury No. 3 was declared grievous. F.I.R. Exhibit PA/1 was recorded at Police Station East, Chandigarh the same evening at 9.05 P.M. on the basis of the statements of Kirpal Singh PW 1.

The petitioners their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication. They examined Dalbir Singh DW 1 owner of M/s Rajdhani Transport Co. located in Transport Area, Chandigarh. He said that he did not witness any such occurrence and that if any such occurrence would have taken place he must have known it.

The prosecution evidence consists of Kirpal Singh PW 1 and Amarjit Singh Pw 2, both the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, Amarjit Singh being the injured one, PW 3 A.S.I. Mani Ram investigated the case while Dr. Ashok Gupta PW 4 medically examined the injured.

The only injury found grievous on the person of Amarjit Singh PW was on the left forearm i.e. nonvital part of the body. The said injury is No. 3 which is as under :

"Incised wound 21/2" x 1/2" x bone deep in the dorsal of left forearm in the upper 1/3rd over ulna. Crepitus over ulna was fell. Fresh bleeding was coming out of the wound."

However, the doctor who radiologically examined Amarjit Singh PW injured was never produced as a witness. Dr. Ashok Gupta PW who declared injury No. 3 grievous on the basis of skiagram Exhibit PN/3 did not give any data as to how this injury was grievous. He did not state that there was fracture nor did he give the extent of the cut. Mr. M.S. Sullar, learn counsel for the petitioner states that in this situation it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that this injury was grievous. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a Supreme Court authority reported as Kailash Prasad Konodia and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 106, herein their Lordships were pleased to hold that since in the injury was on a nonvital part of the body and the fracture was not of serious nature the injury cannot be termed as a grievous one. Consequently I convert the conviction of both the petitioners from one under section 326/34 to under section 324/34 I.P.C. Keeping in view their ages and the fact that they are not previous convicts, I think they deserve to be dealt with under section 360 Cr.P.C. Consequently, I suspend their sentences and order that the petitioners be released on probation on their entering into bonds of Rs. 3000/ each with one surely in the like amount for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the trial Court, undertaking to appear in the Court to receive the sentence during the said period whenever called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. However, each one of them would pay Rs. 1500/ as compensation payable to injured Amarjit Singh. Compensation if not paid within two months the petitioners would be called upon top serve their sentences. Fine if already paid would be adjusted towards compensation. But for this modification, Criminal Revision Nos. 410 and 979 of 1984 stand disposed of.

rder accordingly.