Nachhattar Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda and as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, in appeal.

In brief, the facts are that on 23.5.1986 at 7/8 P.M. when Jangir Singh, complainant, came back after doing labour work in the fields, Balbir Singh, his brother, and his two sons, namely, Nachhattar Singh and Harbans Singh, carrying ''Kasoli'', ''Kasia'' and ''Gandasa'' respectively came before his house and started abusing him and asked him to come out of his house so that he (Balbir Singh) may take his share of land. Jangir Singh, complainant, followed by his wife, Gurdip Kaur and son, Jaswinder Singh came out of their house. Jangir Singh asked the accused persons not to call him bad names. On this, Nachhattar Singh gave a Kasia blow on the head of Jangir Singh from its sharp side; Balbir Singh gave a Kasoli blow on his left arm and then Nachhattar Singh again gave a Kasia blow from its reverse side on his head. When Jangir Singh on receiving injuries fell on the ground, Harbans Singh, other son of Balbir Singh, gave a Gandasa blow on his forehead from its blunt side. The wife and son of Jangir Singh raised an alarm. Accused fled away with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Jangir Singh was rushed to hospital. On completion of investigation, accused were challaned under Sections 326/323/325/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial court on the appreciation of evidence on record convicted all the petitioners. For offences under Sections 326, 325 and 323 IPC, the petitionersaccused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, six months and three months respectively. They were also burdened to pay Rs. 500/ each to the injuredcomplainant failing which they were to further undergo R.I. for a period of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, conviction and sentence of the petitioners was maintained.

In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the doctors who performed medicolegal examination and x rayed the injuries and gave opinion have not been produced. He contended that the conviction cannot be maintained simply on the basis of ocular testimony of injured and eyewitnesses or the photographer who had taken Skiagrams. He further contended that if the report, Exh. P4/A is excluded, the ocular testimony at the most would prove offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for as far as conviction of the petitioners is concerned. The argument raised here too was raised before the Additional Sessions Judge and in para 6 of the judgment he rejected the argument by giving detailed reasons. I find no ground to differ with the reasoning of Additional Sessions judge. The report of Dr. K.C. Goel was proved by Varinder Kumar, Radiographer (PW4) who had also taken skiagrams. P.W. 4 was familiar with the handwriting of Dr. K.C. Goel as he had been working with him for six years. Moreover, the medical report was exhibited in the presence of counsel for the accused and was not objected to. Report shows that there is fracture of partietal bone and thus, conviction has rightly been recorded under Section 326 IPC. As regards the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that it requires modification. The F.I.R. is dated 24.5.1986 and it took about seven years for the trial to conclude. Petitioners were taken in custody on 11.7.1995 when the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and it was on 5.9.1995, their sentence was suspended by this Court. As is apparent from reading of the F.I.R., the dispute was between the brothers in regard to share in the land and therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.