Jit Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

Vide order dated 1.12.1986, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, district Bhatinda convicted Jit Singh and Gursewak Singh under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code, Jit Singh, Gursewak Singh, Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh under Section 323 Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 38 of 18.3.1985 of PS Dialpura and sentenced each of them as follows :

Jit Singh and Gursewak Singh

RI for 6 months each and fine of Rs. 800/ each. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month each under Section 325 IPC.

Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh

RI for 3 months each under Section 325/34 IPC.

Jit Singh, Gursewak Singh

RI for 3 months each under Section 323 IPC.

Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh

Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case projected at the trial which culminated in the conviction of Jit Singh and his sons Gursewak Singh, Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh runs as follows :

Smt. Baldev Kaur is daughter of Kaur Singh PW3. Kaur Singh PW3 (injured in this case) is resident of village Nathpura. Baldev Kaur was married at village Kotha Guru. Unfortunately, Baldev Kaur''s husband i.e. Kaur Singh''s soninlaw was murdered. Kaur Singh along with his son Buta Singh aged 1213 years and wife Mukhtiar Kaur shifted to village Kotha Guru to his daughter Baldev Kaur and started cultivating her land. About a year prior to 18.8.1985 (i.e. when this occurrence took place), he was given injuries by Jit Singh and his sons. In regard to those injuries, case was pending in court. Police got both sides bound down under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Kaur Singh''s relations with Jit Singh and his sons were inimical because of land dispute. On the night intervening 8/9.3.85 at about 12 a.m., Kaur Singh and his son Buta Singh had gone to their fields for irrigating it. His turn of water was to commence at 3.50 a.m. He was to take water after the turn of Jit Singh was over. Jit Singh and his sons Gursewak Singh armed with kasauli, Sukhdev Singh armed with lathi and Harbans Singh armed with soti ran towards Kaur Singh and Buta Singh. Kaur Singh was having a broken bamboo with him. Jit Singh exhorted his coaccused that he should be killed as he was not leaving village Kotha Guru. He should be compelled to leave village Kotha Guru so that they could take possession of the land of Baldev Kaur. Exhorted by this lalkara, Jit Singh and his sons began belabouring Kaur Singh. His son Buta Singh kept weeping and raising raula "bachao bachao" at some distance. Gursewak Singh gave Kasauli blow (while using kasauli from its blunt side) in the chest of Kaur Singh. Sukhdev Singh gave lathi blow in the back of Kaur Singh. Jit Singh was exhorting his sons that he must be eliminated that day and they would see what happened. Harbans Singh gave soti blow in the chest of Kaur Singh (left side). Kaur Singh fell down. He suffered abrasions. Jit Singh and Harbans Singh kept dragging him. Gursewak Singh wielded kasuali from its reverse side towards Kaur Singh. To ward off the blow, Kaur Singh raised his right hand. Kasauli blow landed on his wrist. He gave kasauli below while using kasauli from its reverse side on the left ankle of Kaur Singh. Harbans Singh gave soti blow on the head of Kaur Singh. Kaur Singh became unconscious. All the accused ran away with their respective weapons thinking that he was dead. Buta Singh PW went to village Kotha Guru and brought Baldev Kaur to the spot. Kaur Singh injured was taken to Primary Health Centre (PHC) Bhagta for medical examination. Kaur Singh made statement Ex.PD before ASI Devinder Sharma at PHC, Bhagta. Statement Ex.PD was incorporated in DDR. Case FIR No. 28 was registered on 18.3.85 under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code after the receipt of the Xray report. After investigation, Jit Singh and his sons were challaned vide order dated 14.6.85. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate charged Jit Singh, Gursewak Singh and Harbans Singh under section 325 Indian Penal Code. He charged Sukhdev Singh under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code. He charged Sukhdev Singh under section 323 Indian Penal Code. He charged Jit Singh, Gursewak Singh and Harbans Singh under section 323/34 Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

With a view to bring home to the accused the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. A.C. Bajaj, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda PW1, Dr. G.C. Garg, Medical Officer, PHC, Bhagta PW2, Kaur Singh PW3, Buta Singh PW4 and ASI Devinder Sharma, PW5.

Accused when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against them and stated that it is a false case. They did not lead any evidence in defence. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul found the charge proved against Jit Singh and his sons vide order dated 1.12.86 and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. Their appeal to the court of Session met the same fate.

Jit Singh and his sons have knocked the door of this court through this criminal revision in the hope that they will be acquitted.

Dr. G.C. Garg, Medical Officer, PHC Bhagta found a number of injuries on the person of Kaur Singh. Injuries found on his person need not be repeated here as they find mention in the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Dr. G.C. Garg PW2 stated that the injured was unconscious. Surgical emphysema was present on the right side more than on left life of the chest. Injuries 2,3,4 and 10 were simple in nature. Injuries 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were kept under observation. All the injuries were the result of blunt weapon. Dr. A.C. Bajaj, radiologist, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda PW1 radiologically examined Kaur Singh on 19.3.85. He Xrayed the right and left forearm, right and left foot with legs. He Xrayed chest also. He found that there were multiple fractures of radius and styloid process of Ulna on the Xray of right forearm. He also saw fracture of both malleoli in the xray of left foot with leg. He found fracture of 8th to 11th ribs with surgical emphysema on the right side of chest. He saw fracture of 8th to 10th ribs in the left side of chest. Kaur Singh PW3 stated in terms of the prosecution case as set out above. Buta Singh PW4 supported him through and through in his statement.

Eye witness account given by Kaur Singh and Buta Singh PWs finds corroboration from the medical account of the injuries given by Dr. G.C. Garg and Dr. A.C. Bajaj PWs. There is no delay so far as lodging of statement Ex. PD is concerned. Setting the law in motion could not be expected earlier as Buta Singh was quite raw being 1213 years old. He could not have composed himself and make statement to the police. Statement of Kaur Singh was recorded by ASI Devinder Sharma in PHC, Bhagta where he reached on receipt of medico legal report. There is backdrop of inimical relations between Kaur Singh on the one hand and Jit Singh and his sons on the other. Jit Singh is the real brother of Baldev Kaur''s husband. Her father shifted to village Kotha Guru after her husband''s death and started cultivating his land. In my opinion, the learned courts below justifiably convicted Jit Singh and his sons of the charge framed against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Gurusewak Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Harbans Singh were all 1920 years old in the year 1985. They should have been released on probation of good conduct by the court and they should not have been sentenced to substantive sentence. It has been submitted that if they were to be sentenced to imprisonment, the court should have called the report of the District Probation Officer regarding the feasibility of the grant of benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to them. It has been submitted that sentencing them to imprisonment straightaway was illegal and against the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. In my opinion, this submission should not be given any weight because even if the District Probation Officer had reported that they should be released on probation of good conduct, that report would not have been binding on the court. Kaur Singh was beaten to jelly by Jit Singh and his sons who were variously armed. Their release on probation of good conduct would have been injustice to the victim of this outrage let loose by the accused on him. Their release on probation of good conduct would have emboldened them to attack him again. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is designed to be used when casual offenders are before the court and not those who are prone to attack their victim again. It is not a case where the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act can come to the aid of the petitioners.

For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioners by the two Courts below are maintained.