Makhan Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by Makhan Singh son of Bhagat Singh, who along with his wife Jabir Kaur and son Sukhwinder Singh alias Soni, was named as accused in case FIR No. 206 dated 4.6.2002, registered at Police Station Sangrur, under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 IPC.

Vide its judgment dated 30.11.2002, the trial Court found that no offence u/s 307 IPC was made out, however, held the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 325 IPC, whereas his co- accused Jasbir Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh alias Soni with the aid of Section 34 IPC. His co-accused were also held guilty for the offence u/s 323 IPC, whereas the appellant with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order, passed by the trial Court on the same day, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offence u/s 325 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, his co-accused were released on probation for a period of one year.

Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal in this Court.

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 4.6.2000 at about 7.15 a.m., Makhan Singh, appellant, armed with gandasi, was accompanied by his wife Jasbir Kaur and son Sukhwinder Singh alias Soni, who were armed with soties. At that time, they stopped Jia Lal, who was coming on his bicycle, and told him to withdraw the case filed against the appellant. But the complainant refused to do so. On this, the accused had caused him injuries. Makhan Singh gave a gandasi blow on the right side of the head of the complainant, whereas Jasbir Kaur gave a soti blow which hit on the knee of his right leg. Sukhwinder Singh alias Soni gave soti blow on the face of the complainant which hit on his nose. The complainant raised a noise. Ram Narain and Geeta Rani, wife of the complainant, were attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. On their arrival, all the accused had decamped from the spot along with their weapons.

The above said FIR was investigated and the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted.

Jia Lal, injured, was examined by PW.1 Dr. H.S. Bali, on 4.6.2000 at about 8.25 A.M. and found the following injuries:

A lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm on right side of scalp, 6 cm above the upper margin of right pinna. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.

A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on front of right lower leg. 10 cm below right tibial tuberosity. Fresh bleeding was present.

Bleeding per nose. X-ray was advised.

On 5.6.2000 at about 8.30 A.M., another following injury, which had escaped notice of the doctor, was noted:

Swelling with reddish bluish bruise in the area of 10 cm x 8 cm on the right scapular and shoulder area. X-ray was advised.

Injury No. 1, on the head of complainant, attributed to the appellant, was declared as grievous.

Jia Lal, injured, appeared as PW.2 and his testimony was corroborated by PW.6 Ram Narain.

The prosecution had also examined PW.3 Dr. Narinder Singh, who had declared Jia Lal, injured, as fit to make statement.

PW.4 Dr. Karam Singh was the Radiologist, who found fracture of fronto parietal bone.

PW.5 Sukhwinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had investigated the case.

PW.7 Dinesh Kumar, Clerk from the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, proved the bed head ticket No. 2263/71.

PW.8 Dharminder Singh, Draftsman, had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.P12.

Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence.

The statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same.

In his statement, recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it was stated by the appellant that on 4.6.2000 at about 7.00 A.M., his wife Jasbir Kaur was throwing garbage outside when Jia Lal came there and ran away after inflicting the injuries to her. The cycle of Jia Lal had struck against a tree and a tempo, while he was running away, he received the injuries.

To prove this version, Jora Singh was examined as DW.1

The trial Court relied upon the testimonies of PW.2 Jia Lal, injured and PW.6 Ram Narain and held the appellant guilty. Jia Lal was the injured and will be the last person to falsely implicate the appellant. As stated earlier, the trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence u/s 307 IPC and has convicted him only for the offence u/s 325 IPC. The State has preferred no appeal against the acquittal of the appellant for the offence u/s 307 IPC.

In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 2000 and the appellant has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about ten years. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, at this stage. However, taking into consideration the fact that in the last ten years, the appellant has not committed any such offence, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the appellant to reform himself and lead a path of rectitude.

Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to his furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall undertake to appear and receive the sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so and be of good behaviour. However, the cost of litigation is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The trial Court shall call upon the appellant to furnish probation bonds and deposit the cost of litigation. In case, the cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the appellant. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured as compensation.

With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed of.