Jasbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh, J.—The present Petitioner-accused, Jasbir Singh along with Pardeep Singh, Jaspal Singh @ Nikka and Nirmal Singh @ Pappi, was tried for the offences u/s 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. They were convicted for those offences by SDJM, Dhuri, vide judgment dated 4.6.2004 and were sentenced as under:

Jasbir Singh-accused

Sr.No. Under Section Sentence imposed Fine

1 325 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year Rs. 500/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months Rs. 300/- In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month

1 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months Rs. 300/-each In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month

2 325/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months Rs. 500/-each In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months

They preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Sangrur. Their conviction was maintained. The other accused were released on probation whereas in the case of the Petitioner-accused only the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him u/s 325 IPC was reduced from one year to six months. Against his conviction and that sentence, he has preferred the present revision.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that a fight had taken place between Gurdev Kaur, complainant, P.W. 2, and Manjit Kaur, wife of the Petitioner-accused and on that ground the accused were nourishing a grudge against her. On 16.6.1999, at about 8.30 p.m., she was going from her house to milk diary. When she reached near the school of the village, she was way laid by all the accused. At that time, the Petitioner-accused was armed with a sota, Pardeep Singh was armed with an gandasa, Puppy was armed with gandhali and Nikka was armed with a stick. The Petitioner- accused gave a blow with sota on her left leg near the knee and the second blow was given by him on her left arm. Pardeep Singh gave a blow with his gandasa on the palm of her hand and the second blow of gandasa was given by him on her left foot. Puppy gave blow with his gandhali on her left upper arm and the second blow was given on the back side of her left hand. That accused gave a third blow with his gandhali on her left thigh. Nikka gave a blow with his stick on the left side of her back. While raising alarms and raising a threat to kill her, all the accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant was removed to the hospital where she was medically examined by Dr. Badri Dass, P.W. 1, who found nine injuries on her person, which were detailed by him in the Medico Legal Report, Ex. P.1. He sent written information, Ex. P.2, to the police station, on the receipt of which Jagjiwan Singh, ASI, P.W. 5, came to the hospital and made an application, Ex. P.7, to enquire about the fitness of the complainant to make her statement. She was declared unfit to make her statement by Dr. Badri Dass, vide his endorsement, Ex. P.3. ON 18.6.1999, the ASI made similar application to the doctor to enquire about her fitness to make her statement and she was declared fit to make her statement, vide endorsement Ex.P.5. Thereafter, the ASI recorded her statement. Ex. P.C and after making his endorsement, Ex. P.10, upon the same, sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof report was recorded in the Roznamcha (Daily Diary Register) at Sr. No. 29. The injuries on the person of the complainant were Radiologically examined by Dr. S.P. Gupta, P.W. 6, who found fracture of fibula (right leg) and radius (left arm). On the receipt of the report, Ex. P.13 of that doctor, FIR, Ex. P.11. was recorded on the basis of the statement of the complainant. The ASI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan, Ex. P.12, with correct marginal notes. In the course of investigation, the accused were arrested and after the completion thereof, the challan was put in before JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Dr. Badri Dass, P.W. 1, Gurdev Kaur, P.W. 2, Sinder Singh, P.W. 3, Sukhdev Singh, P.W. 4, Jagjiwan Singh, P.W. 5 and Dr. S.P. Gupta, P.W. 6. After the evidence was closed by the prosecution, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence. They were called upon to enter on their defence and they examined Tarsem Singh, D.W. 1, Balbir Singh, D.W. 2 and Jora Singh, D.W. 3 in their defence evidence.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-accused did not assail the conviction of the accused so recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He submitted that against the sentence of imprisonment of six months, the Petitioner-accused has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about 01 month and 15 days and that the other accused were given the benefit of probation. The Petitioner-accused is standing his trial since the year 1998 and the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

The sentence of one year of imprisonment so imposed by the trial Court, was reduced to six months by the appellate Court. The Petitioner-accused is standing his protracted trial from the last more than 12 years. The ends of justice will be met, in case the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him, is reduced to the period already undergone by him, provided he be directed to pay compensation to the complainant for the injuries suffered by her at his hands. She suffered the fracture of leg and the arm on account of the blows given by this accused with the help of sota. The sentence imposed upon the Petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he is directed to pay Rs. 35,000/-as compensation to the complainant for the injuries suffered by her. The compensation shall be paid/deposited in the trial Court by the Petitioner accused within a period of three months of the passing of this order failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

Revision is disposed of accordingly.

Records of the trial Court be returned forthwith.