Jagir Singh & Ors. vs State of Punjab

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

By way of this revision petition four petitioners, namely, Jagir Singh, Bachan Singh Harbhajan Singh and Harjinder Singh have challenged their conviction and sentence under various sections. They stand sentenced as under :

Bachan Singh :

R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further

R.I. for six months under section 326 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 324/34 IPC

R.I. for three months under section 323/34 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 452 IPC.

Rs 100 as fine, in default further R I for one month, under section 427 IPC.

Jagir Singh :

R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further

R.I. for six months, under section 326/34 IPC

R.I. for six months under section 324/34 IPC.

R.I. for three months under section 323/34 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 452 IPC.

Rs. 100 as fine, in default further R.I. for one month, under section 427 IPC.

Harbhanjan Singh :

R.I for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further

R.I. for six months, under section 326/34 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 324/34 IPC.

R.I. for three months under section 324/34 IPC.

R.I for six months under section 452 IPC.

Rs. 100 as fine, in default further R I for one month, under section 427 IPC.

Harjinder Singh :

R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further

R.I. for six months, under section 326/34 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 324/34 IPC.

R.I for three months under section 323/34 IPC.

R.I. for six months under section 452 IPC.

Rs. 100 as fine, in default further R.I. for one month under section 427 IPC.

All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

On the night intervening 13th and 14th January, 1983, the petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to Ajit Singh PW2, Kulwant Singh PW3 and Raghbir Singh PW5 while variously armed. The injured were medically examined by Dr. N.K. Sharma PW 1 on 14th January, 1983. He found the following injuries on Kulwant Singh :

An incised wound 61/2 x 1/2 cm on the lateral posterior aspect, 1/2 cm below the right elbow joint. The underlying bone was fractured.

An Abrasion 11/4 x 1 cm, 11/4 cm above the right cubical fossa

Injury No. 1 was declared grievous and injury No. 2 simple and were caused respectively with a sharpedged weapon and a blunt weapon. He found the following injuries on Ajit Singh :

An incised wound 21/2 cm x 1/4 cm 1 cm above the medial onethired of the left eyebrow. It was bone deep.

An incised wound 1/2 cm x 0.2 cm on the lateral aspect of left leg thigh in its middle.

An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on the lateral aspect of the left in its middle.

An abrasion 21/4 cm x 0.2 cm on the medial anterior aspect of the left leg, 11/2 cm above the ankle joint.

Two abrasions 5 x 1.1 cm and 31/2 x 0.2 cm on the anterior lateral aspect of the right thigh in its upper onethird.

Lacerated wound 11/4 x 0.2 cm on the front of the right leg in its middle.

Injury No. 1 was kept under observation and the remaining injuries were found simple in nature. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were found to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon and the rest with a blunt weapon. After Xray examination injury No. 1 was also declared grievous. On Raghbir Singh the following injuries were found :

A lacerated wound 11/4 x 1/4 cm in the middle of the right upper lip going towards the inner aspect of right upper lip.

A reddish contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the front of right shoulder joint.

An abrasion 4 cm x 0.2 cm on the front of left leg in its middle.

All the injuries were declared simple and to have been caused with a blunt weapon.

It was a case of counterversion. Bachan Singh petitioner and Amar Singh son of Bela Singh also recived injuries in this occurrence.

They were also medically examined by Dr. N. K. Sharma on the same day. The following injuries were found on Bachan Singh :

A lacerated wound 21/2 x 1/4 cm on the left eyebrow. The under lying bone was fractured.

An incised wound 5 x 11/4 cm on the interior lateral aspect of the right forearm in its lower onethird. It was skin deep.

An abrasion 31/2 x 2 cm on the front of left knee joint.

An abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on the later aspect of right knee joint.

Injury No. 1 was declared grievous and the rest simple, Injury No. 2 was caused with a sharpedged weapon and the rest with a blunt weapon. The following injuries were found on Amar Singh :

A lacerated wound 11/2 x 1/2 cm on the front of the leg in its upper onethird. It was bone deep.

A lacerated wound 11/2 x 1/2 cm on the front of left knee joint. It was bone deep.

Both the injuries were found simple and to have been caused with a blunt weapon. There was a crosschallan and in the crosscase all the three injured prosecution witnesses and their father Tara Singh were challenged but the trial Magistrate acquitted the prosecution witnesses of the charge and convicted the petitioner as aforesaid.

The injuries suffered by Bachan Singh and Amar Singh are obviously of the same duration. It is nobody''s case that the injuries suffered by Bachan Singh and Amar Singh were self suffered. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the prosecution about the injuries suffered by Bachan Singh and the prosecution witness in the crosscase, namely, Amar Singh. On the other hand, the petitioners gave a reasonable explanation about the injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses in the sense that they stated that they caused these injuries in their selfdefence. The Court below have mainly been influenced by the fact that the investigating officer took into possession bloodstained earth from the roof of the house of the prosecution witnesses but it remains a fact that the earth was never sent for chemical examination so as to come to a finding as to whether it was human blood. The other factor which weighed with the Courts below was that some photographs of the broken shutters of the chobara was taken. But, again, it may be pertinent to note that no mention of the damage to the shutters was made in the first information lodged by the alleged eye witness.

The prosecution witnesses are three brothers. The only independent witness, namely, Kashmir Singh was given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. So the prosecution witnesses must be interested in exaggerating the part played by the petitioners and minimising their own part. So, in this situation, it cannot be said that the case against prosecution has been able to establish the genesis of the occurrence. I am, therefore, of the view that it cannot be held that the petitioners stands established beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to them.