Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.5.90, Bikar Singh along with his brother Gurcharan Singh had gone to his fields for irrigating. At about 3 PM, Bikar Singh brought water from the outlet near the field of Mohinder Singh son of Bala Singh of his village Beer Khurd. At about 6/6.30 PM, Bikar Singh was standing near the tubewell when his brother Gurcharan Singh was irrigating the field at a distance of 2025 karams. Their mother brought tea for them and she sat near them. In the meantime, Mohinder Singh son of Bala Singh carrying gandasi came there. He asked Bikar Singh as to why he had dug earth from his land. He replied that he had taken earth from the water channel (Khal) and not from his land. Mohinder Singh hurled abuse on him and threatened to teach him lesson for digging earth from his land. Mohinder Singh gave gandasi blow while using gandasi struck in the left side of his head. Mohinder Singh gave another gandasi blow from its reverse side on his forehead near the left eye. He gave another gandasi blow from the reverse side which fell on his nose. Bikar Singh fell down. Mohinder Singh gave gandasi blow on the back side of his right shoulder and on his arm near the wrist from its sharp side. He and his mother raised raula. Mohinder Singh gave gandasi blow from sharp side which fell on the head of his mother. He gave her another gandasi blow from its reverse side which fell on her arm. Gurcharan Singh PW came to their rescue. He rescued Bikar Singh and his mother from the clutches of Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh ran away. On the statement of Bikar Singh, case FIR No. 37 was registered at PS Bhikhi under Section 326/324/323 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Mohinder Singh was challaned. On the conclusion of the trial, Mohinder Singh was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa vide order dated 8.7.97 under Section 326/324/323 Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 months under section 326 Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo RI for one year under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. He further sentenced him to undergo for 3 months under section 323 Indian Penal Code. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Aggrieved from conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 8.7.97, Mohinder Singh want in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa dismissed the appeal and thus maintained the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Magistrate.

Aggrieved from this order dated 24.8.98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa dismissing his appeal against conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Magistrate, Mohinder Singh has come up in revision to this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if Gurcharan Singh PW had been present with his brother Bikar Singh watering the fields, it is improbable that he would not have swung into action and repelled the attack and thus saved his brother and mother from the onslaught. He further submitted that Bikar Singh and Gurcharan Singh had gone to their fields for irrigating. If they had gone to their fields for irrigating them, they could not have been without spades (kassis). He submitted that it is not probable that Mohinder Singh who was alone could cause injuries to Bikar Singh and his mother in the presence of Gurcharan Singh. Suffice it to say, Mohinder Singh was duly armed and he had gone there with a view to involving himself with Bikar Singh. How could Bikar Singh visualise that Mohinder Singh will open attack on him. Similarly, how could Gurcharan Singh visualise that he would attack them. Gurcharan Singh, Bikar Singh and their mother were unarmed and further they could not visualise that Mohinder Singh would open an attack.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is delay in the lodging of the FIR. In this case, assuming there is delay in the lodging of the First Information Report, delay in not material as the prosecution case rests on the testimony of Bikar Singh and his mother. Both of them are stamped witnesses. Why should they have deposed against Mohinder Singh falsely ? There is no animus disclosed against them by Mohinder Singh. Dr. Anil Kumar Gulati medically examined Bikar Singh and his mother. He gave medical account of the injuries found by him on their person. Medical account of the injuries given by him fully fits in with the ocular account of the occurrence given by Bikar Singh and his mother.

Dr. Hardev Singh Sandhu conducted xray examination of the injuries of Bikar Singh and his mother Kartar Kaur. He did not any fracture in injuries 1 and 2 of Bikar Singh. He found fracture of parietal bone so far as Bikar Singh''s mother Kartar Kaur is concerned.

I have gone through the judgment recorded by the learned Magistrate convicting the petitioner and find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment. Learned Magistrate has correctly appraised the evidence on record and reached the conclusion that the charge under section 326/324/323 Indian Penal Code stood proved against him. Judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also quite in order. I have not been able to notice any illegality or infirmity in the manner in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reappraised the evidence brought on record. In my opinion, Mohinder Singh was justifiably convicted by the two courts below. So, this revision was found to be without any merit. Revision was accordingly dismissed so far as conviction is concerned by me vide order dated September 21, 1998.

Sentence imposed upon the petitioner is little excessive. Doctor found only one injury falling within the ambit of section 326 IPC on the scalp of Smt. Kartar Kaur PW. Other injury found on the person of Kartar Kaur was simple falling within the ambit of section 323 IPC. All the injuries found on the person of Bikar Singh were falling within the ambit of Section 323/324 IPC and they were all simple. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last about 8 years and the sentence so far undergone by him should meet the ends of justice. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Pashora Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1993(1) RCR 188 .

Suffice it to say, in 1993(1) RCR 188 (supra), occurrence had taken place on 27.8.81 and the accused had undergone the agony of trial for more than a year before the trial court and the appeal against their acquittal remained pending in the High Court for 8 years. High Court sentenced both the accused to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ each under Section 307/34 IPC. The High Court directed that out of the amount of fine, if realised, Rs. 4,000/ be paid to Pal Singh injured and Rs. 2,000/ be paid to Amar Singh injured by way of compensation. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months under section 447 IPC. Pishora Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months under Section 324 IPC. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused filed SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court against their conviction. SLP was granted. Hon''ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307/34 IPC. The accused were convicted for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and awarded sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/. Coaccused Lahora Singh, the real brother of Pishora Singh died on 10.1.92. It was submitted that the burden of looking after the widow and 3 minor children of Lahora Singh appellant fell on the shoulders of Pishora Singh apart from the burden of his own wife and 3 minor children. This fact also influenced the mind of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Facts of this case are thus difference from the facts of 1993(1) RCR 188 (supra).

He drew my attention to Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR 118 in support of this submission that the sentence so far undergone should suffice. In this case, however, what I feel is that Mohinder Singh does not have a human heart. He caused as many as 8 injuries to Bikar Singh. He did not spare even his mother and caused her 2 injuries, one of them is given below which is of grievous nature falling within the ambit of section 326 IPC :

Incised wound 71/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm on front portion scalp. Transversely placed 11 cm above the bridge of nose. Right end of the wound is 9 cm above right pinna. Underlying bone was cut. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

Sentence so far undergone by him will not adequately meet the ends of justice. Sentence imposed upon him is slashed and is brought down to RI for one year. He shall pay fine of Rs. 5,000/, or in default shall undergo further RI for 3 months under section 326 IPC. Out of the amount of fine, if recovered, Rs. 1,000/ shall be paid to Bikar Singh and Rs. 4,000/ shall be paid to Smt. Kartar Kaur. Sentence imposed under Section 324 IPC is reduced to 6 months RI. Sentence imposed under section 323 IPC is reduced to 3 months RI. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Subject to this reduction/variation in sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.