Mishra Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—The petitioners-accused (herein referred as ''the accused'') have assailed the judgment dated 28.03.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.1995, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana, convicting and sentencing them as under:

Name of Accused Offence under Section/Sentence

Mishra Singh 326 IPC Rigrous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Sardara Singh, Tara 326/149 Rigorous imprisonment for Singh, Jora Singh and IPC period of 6 months and to pay a Jasbir Singh fine of Rs. 500/- each on each count. 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each 323/149 Rigorous imprisonment for a IPC period of 2 months each.

However, during appeal, sentence of accused Mishra Singh was reduced to 1� years u/s 326 IPC. Similarly, the sentence of accused Sardara Singh, Tara Singh, Jora Singh and Jasbir Singh was reduced to four months each under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC.

The case involves the causing of the simple as well as grievous injuries to three persons namely Darbara Singh, Raghbir Singh and Karamjit Singh at the hands of accused persons.

On 19.10.1992 at about 1:30 p.m., Darbara Singh (herein referred as ''the complainant''), his brother Raghbir Singh and his nephew Karamjit Singh were irrigating their fields from their tubewell whereas his brother Sardara Singh and Randhir Singh were thrashing paddy crop nearby. At that time, the accused Mishra Singh armed with gandasa and accused Jasbir Singh, Jora Singh and Tara Singh armed with sticks (soties) arrived the electric pole where the transformer was installed. The accused Mishra Singh climbed the electric pole in order to cut the jamper. Raghbir Singh and his nephew Karamjit Singh had also arrived there. Karamjit Singh asked the accused Mishra Singh not to cut the jamper of their electric line. Feeling enraged, the accused Mishra Singh came down and inflicted a gandasa blow, hitting on the left eye of Karamjit Singh, resultantly he fell down. When complainant and his brother Raghbir Singh came to rescue of Karamjit Singh then the accused Jasbir Singh inflicted a stick blow on the backside of the head of Raghbir Singh and accused Jora Singh inflicted a stick blow on the right shoulder of the complainant. The complainant and Raghbir Singh also fell down. Accused Sardara Singh and Jora Singh inflicted a stick blow each on the back of Raghbir Singh and complainant respectively. Accused Mishra Singh exhorted that the complainant party would not be spared and they also inflicted further stick blows while they were lying on the ground. The hue and cry, raised by them, attracted Sadhu Singh and Randhir Singh. Thereafter, the accused fled away. The injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Samana in the tractor-trolley of Gamdoor Singh.

On enquiry on 19.10.1992, the injured persons were found unfit to make the statement, therefore, ASI Gurpal Singh (herein referred as ''the Investigating Officer'') recorded the statement of complainant Darbara Singh on the next day i.e. on 20.10.1992 on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused at 2:00 p.m. He inspected the spot, prepared the rough site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses and collected the medico legal reports of the injured persons. Completion of investigation was followed by a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

The accused were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, Tara Singh took plea of alibi and stated that Sardara Singh, Zora Singh and Jasbir Singh were in the house and Mishra Singh was working in his field. The disputed transformer was meant to supply the electricity to the accused and the complainant party but the same was burnt a few days back. Complainant party suspected that Mishra Singh had stopped the supply of electricity. Feeling annoyed, Karamjit Singh, Raghbir Singh and Darbara Singh started beating Mishra Singh and caused injuries to him. During the scuffle, Karamjit Singh fell down on the kahi (spade) and received the injuries. Similarly, Raghbir Singh and Darbara Singh also suffered injuries. Mishra Singh suffered the injuries at the hands of the complainant party and got himself medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Samana on 19.10.1992 but the police instead of registering the case against the complainant party involved them (accused) in the instant case. He further pleaded that the occurrence took place near the electric pole, standing in the field.

On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused accordingly. However, the appeal, preferred by the petitioners-accused, was dismissed with the modification in the sentence.

Arguments heard. Record perused. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is reluctant in arguing the case on merits, obviously for the reasons that he may not be having much substance to assail the conviction, recorded by both the Courts below against the accused. In any case, while scrutinizing the impugned judgment, it transpires that the prosecution story, as reiterated by the injured witnesses, is quite consistent in all the material particulars and stands corroborated by the medical evidence. The delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained. The Investigating Officer had gone to Civil Hospital, Samana on 19.10.1992 and moved an application Ex.PW8/A for recording the statements of injured but the doctor opined that the injured were not fit to make the statement. He again visited the hospital on 20.10.1992 and moved application Ex.PW8/B then the doctor opined that Darbara Singh was fit to make the statement whereas Raghbir Singh and Karamjit Singh were still unfit, thus, Darbara Singh got recorded his statement Ex.PA at 2:30 p.m. on 20.10.1992. On the basis of said statement, FIR Ex.PW8/D was registered. The factum with regard to unfitness of the injured to make the statement has been confirmed by Dr. P.K. Mittal, SMO, Civil Hospital, Samana (PW7). Thus, the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained. The witnesses have duly explained the injuries, as suffered by them whereas the injuries suffered by accused Mishra Singh are superficial in nature and need not have been explained. Defence, as set up by the accused, is not probable. The trial Court has rightly observed that most of the entries in the register of Punjab State Electricity Board are not authenticated therefore, no reliance could be placed upon such entries. Moreover, the factum with regard to the occurrence, having taken place, has not been denied by the accused. However, they have given a different version which does not find corroboration from any independent source. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact holding the accused guilty of the offences, therefore, the only element of perversity, arbitrariness of the judgment mis-appreciation or misreading of the evidence could entail the invocation of revisional powers of this Court. But mere fact that some different view could also be possible on the basis of evidence, is not sufficient to interfere with the findings returned by both the Courts below at this revisional stage.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused has lastly urged that since the occurrence took place way back in the year 1992, therefore, the accused could be extended some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to these contentions, it is noticed that the accused, five in number, in furtherance of their common object badly beat three persons, who suffered simple as well as grievous injuries, therefore, mere delay in disposal of the revision petition could not be said to be a sufficient cause for condoning the illegal acts committed by the accused. They took the law in their own hands and attacked the injured brutally and mercilessly, as such, they do not deserve any leniency in the sentence.

Before parting with the judgment, it is observed that earlier when the accused were taken into custody, they were released forthwith by extending them some remissions. The said order of their release was challenged whereby this Court vide order dated 16.08.2002, observed that since the sentence of the petitioners has not been commenced and they were on bail, therefore, they could not claim the benefit of remissions, set aside their release. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:

Counsel for the petitioner contended that when respondents No. 3 to 7 were on bail, benefit of remissions could not be given. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 (4) RCR 341 wherein it was held that when a person is on bail, he cannot claim the benefit of remissions. This contention has merit.

Accordingly this petition is allowed. Release of respondents No. 3 to 7 is set aside and they are directed to be taken into custody to undergo rest of the sentence in accordance with law.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for complaince.