Jassa Singh vs State of Punjab

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

Jass Singh aged 19 years, Jagir Singh aged 16 years, and Bhira aged 17 years, all brothers, stand convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated April 23, 1981 as follows :

Jassa SinghandJagir Singh U/s 326 I.P.C.U/s 320/34 IPC R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ In default R.I. for three months.R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. In default to undergo R.I. for one months.

Bhira U/s 324/34 IPCU/s 324 IPCU/s 326/34 IPC R.I. for nine months.R.I. for nine monthsR.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/. In default R.I. for three months.

U/s 326/34 IPC R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/. In default R.I. for three months.

The case of the prosecution is that Surjit Singh and Avtar Singh P.Ws had a regular account with Commission Agents M/s Kundan Lal Kewal Krishan at village Amarkot. On July 15, 198 at about 1 P.M. these two P.Ws vere proceedings towards Amarkot to settle their account with their Commission Agents, when on the way they met Dalip Singh P.W. He had also to go to the same Commission Agent. All these P.Ws found after reaching Amarkot that the Commission Agents shop was closed on that day. Suddenly all the three appellants appeared there. Jassa Singh appellant was armed with gandasi while the two other appellants had takua each. Jassa Singh opened the attack and caused a gandasi blow to Surjit Singh which hit him on the left eyebrow. Surjit Singh further received one injury at the hands of Bhira appellant on the back of his head. Jagir Singh gave another takua, while Surjit Singh was lying on the ground, one blow each was given by the Jassa Singh and Bhira appellants. On raula being raised by Avtar Singh and Dalip Singh, ail the three appellants left the spot with their respective weapons. The injured was immediately removed to the hospital at Amritsar, where be was medically examined by Dr. S. K. Mahajan, P.W. 2. Following injuries were found on his person :

1) An incised wound 2 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the outer side of left eye brow. Wound was bleeding. Underneath bone was cut.

2) An oblique incised wound 7 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep on left side of face underneath bone was cut and bleeding was present.

3) An incised mound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x through and through of left side of lower lip.

4) An oblique incised wound 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on right side of fack of head 3 cm. from occipital protuberance and I cm. from midline.

5) An abrasion 3 cm. x 1 cm. on inner and back side of left forearm in its lower onethird.

Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and Nos. 3 4 and 5 simple in nature. Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were opened to have been caused with sharpedged weapon while injury No. 5 was the result of blunt weapon. On the same day the injured was operated by Dr. Dharam Pai, P.W. 9. In the opinion of Dr. S.K. Mahajan, P.W.. 2. injury No. 2 on the person of Surjit Singh would have proved dangerous to life but for timely medical aid.

Avtar Singh P.W. 5 went to the police station and made a statement at 7 P.M. which is exhibit PF on the basis of which the case was registered. All the three appellants were arrested on July 24, 1980.

The cause of the dispute was that Surjit Singh P.W. according to these appellants had abused the appellants while under the influence of liquor, 3/4 days prior to this Occurrence.

When examined under section 313. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. to enable them to explain the circumstances, appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, all the three appellants took tip the plea of denial simpliciter and pleaded false implication. In defence, they produced Dr. Manmohan Singh, D. W. I who had examined Bhira appellant and found him disabled person due to the deformity of the left arm.

In order to bring home thecharge to the appellants the prosecution examined P.W. I Dr. Rajive Mirchia, who opined that on July 18, 19SO at 610 P.M. on the police application Ex. PB, he opined Surjit Singh injured fit to make a statement. P.W. 8 Dr. Ramesh Sharma declared Surjit Singh unfit to make statement vide his report exhibit PG/I dated July 15, 1980 at 255 P.M. P.W. 2 is Dr. S.K. Nahajan who examined the injured and proved his medicolegal report exhibit PC the contents of which have been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. P.W. 9 is Dr. Dharam Pal. who operated upon Surjit Singh injured. His proved his operation notes exhibit PH. P.W.3 is Dr. Satish Duggal who admitted Surjit Singh in the Emergency Surgical Ward. P.W. 4 is Rishi Ram Draftsman and is it formal witness. P.W. 5 is Avtar Singh brother of the injured Surjit Singh, and P.W. & is the injured himself who deposed to the occurrence as narrated above. P.W. 5 Avtar Singh further proved his statement Ex. PF recorded by the police. P.W. 7 Dalip Singh was declared hostile and crossexamined by the police. P.W.10 is Malkiat Singh AssistantSubInspector who is the investigator in the case.

Mr. P.S. Mann, Senior Advocate, carried counsel for the appellants has not seriously contested the conviction of the appellants, All that he says is that in view of the medical evidence, the case does not fall within the mischief of Section 326. Indian Penal Code. He has brought to my notice statement made by Dr. Surinder Kumar Mahajan, P.W., while being crossexamined According to him injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were not advised to be Xrayed and he probed these injuries with his finger only. He further stated that he did not mention the width of the bone cut neither did he mention the extent of the width of the cut or the depth of the cut. Strangely enough, the Xray was performed only in case of three injuries which were declared simple earlier by the doctor. This doctor further deposed that it was not possible to measure the depth of the cut of The bone without Xray. He says that while giving the opinion that the injury proved dangerous to life, he (lid not examine the patient for the second time. I feel there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The doctor himself could not deny that the depth of the cut could not be given in examination by naked eye specially when a surer opinion could be obtained after getting the injuries Xrayed. In this situation, it would not be safe to allow the conviction of the appellants under Section 336 Indian Penal Code to stay. I consequently acquit all the three appellants of the charges under Section 1.6 and read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code but maintain the conviction of Bhira appellant under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and of Jassa Singh and Jagir Singh appellants under section 324 read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code. Since admittedly all the three appellants are below the age of 21 years'' so I am left with no option but to grant them the benefit of the provisions of Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

I consequently order that the appellants tic released on probation on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety each for one year with an undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during the said period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour It is admitted by the injured in way that he was a smuggler and that 12 kilograms of gold was recovered from him by the police. So I do not think, he will be entitled to any compensation, With the above notification the appeal is dismissed.