Pala Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The revision petitioners along with Harnek Singh were tried for offences under Sections 326/325/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, and were held guilty for the offences vide order dated 1551986. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under different counts and were also fined. They preferred an appeal against the judgment regarding their conviction and sentence. The appeal was partly accepted and Harnek Singh was acquitted. The sentence awarded to the other accused was maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 4th November, 1986. The petitions whose conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal have filed the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are that on 7th June, 1984 at about 7.00 a.m. Bawa Singh, his wife Suit. Palo and his son Krishna went to their abadi land for tethering cattle. Pala Singh armed with a Gandasi, Harnek and Dheera each armed with Gandali and Chandi armed with a Soti were found present there. Dheera raised a Lalkara that Bawa Singh PW be taught a lesson whereupon Pala Singh stated the attack and gave a Gandasa blow on the left side of the head of Bawa Singh. Chandi gave a soti blow near the left elbow joint of Bawa Singh. Harnek Singh gave a Gandali blow on the head of Smt. Palo and she was also caused another injury on her mouth by a Dang blow given by Chandi. Dheera gave a Gandali below on the head of Krishna and Chandi hit him on his left wrist with his Soti. The alarm raised by the injured attracted Surjit Singh and another Pala Singh nephew of Bawa Singh to the place of occurrence. They took the injured in a tractor trolley to the Civil Hospital, Samrala, where they were medically examined.

The motive for the occurrence was stated to be that there was a dispute between the complainant party and the petitioners regarding abadi land and the matter was decided in favour of the complainant party by the Panchayat. Dheera Singh and others, nourished a grudge against the complainant party and when the complainant party came to that abadi land on the day of occurrence they inflicted injuries.

The contention of the petitioners during trial when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that they were falsely implicated. In fact the complainantparty had gone to the abadi land as aggressors and they caused injuries to Dheera. He, in order to defend himself, caused some injuries to the complainantparty. Pala Singh, Harnek Singh and Chandi denied their presence at the spot. In defence Pritam Kaur was examined as DW 1.

I have heard Mr. A.S. Bankshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners and Mr. A.S. Sidhu, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioners did not assail the conviction of the appellants before me and he confined his arguments on the nature of injury attributed to Dheera petitioner. He contended that Bawa Singh PW was caused two injuries, both of which were simple in nature and were attributed to Pala Singh and Chandi petitioners. Smt. Palo received two simple injuries out of which one Gandali blow alleged to have been given on her head was attributed to Harnek Singh, who had already been acquitted. The injuries attributed to Pala Singh and Chandi were thus, simple injuries, except one found on the face of Smt. Palo which was dislocation of tooth and came within the preview of Section 325 IPC. It was next urged that Dheera was attributed only one injury alleged to have been caused by him with Gandali on the head of Krishna. This injury was in fact caused by a blunt weapon but was wrongly described by the doctor as an incised wound. Admittedly Gandali was used Dangwise and since it was not a sharp edged weapon, the injury could not have been an incised wound. The witness is admitted that Gandali was used Dangwise and Dr. Harcharn Singh, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who Xrayed the injuries on the person of Kishna and Bawa Singh, stated that the injury on the head of Krishna was a fissured fracture and was not in a straightline. He was unable to give the depth of the injury. PW 2 Dr. R. L. Taneja stated that sometimes an injury on the scalp looked like incised wound instead of lacerated wound. In view of this evidence it was contended that the only injury attributed to Dheera came within the purview of Section 325 IPC. The incident in this case took place in the year 1984 and the petitioner had faced this protracted litigation for the last more than 9 years, so it was a fit case where the petitioners may not be sent to jail and may be given benefit of probation.

A perusal of the medicolegal evidence on record shows that the three injured witnesses suffered six injuries out of which one injury came within the purview of Section 325 IPC. The injury attributed to Dheera, which was considered as an injury under Section 326 IPC, is in fact an injury caused by a blunt weapon. It was caused by Gandali, which is not a sharpedged weapon except that its tip may be sharp. The witnesses admitted that Gandali was used Dangwise which will show that only the blunt portion of the weapon was used. The depth of the injury was not given and the injury did not have clean cut margins. It was only a fissured fracture of small dimensions. The doctor admitted that sometimes an injury on the head caused by a blunt weapon may give the appearance of an incised wound. In these circumstances I find that the injury attributed to Dheera, though grievous was caused with a blunt weapon and no offence under Section 326 IPC was made out. Conviction of Dheera under Section 126 IPC and that of Pala Singh and Chandi under Section 326/34 IPC is, therefore, set aside.

The revision petitioners are not habitual offenders and this is the first offence alleged to have been committed by them for which they have faced this protracted litigation and mental agony for the last 9 years. In their statements recorded on 1551986 they have deposed that they were Harijan labourers, who were the only bread earners in their families and they were to support their minor children and old parents. Considering all the circumstances of the case I feel that it wall be expedient in the interest of justice that they should be given benefit of probation.

As a result I direct that they be released on probation on their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/ with one surety in the like amount each for a period of one year, undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon by the Court during this period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The petitioner will furnish probation bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, within a period of two months from today,

JUDGMENT accordingly.