Pritam Singh and another vs The State of Punjab

J.M. Tandon, J.—Pritam Singh (2)(sic) and his father Harbans Singh (40) have been convicted u/s 31(sic) and 324, Indian Penal Code, respectively by the Sessions Judge, Roopnagar vide order dated May 31, 1977. Pritam Singh has been sentenced to four year''s rigorous imprisonment and Harbans Singh to one year''s rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution case, as narrated by Santokh Singh injured is that the fields of the Appellants adjoins their fields in village Fur(sic)-khali. Some of their fields are situate across the fields of the Appellants About a month prior to the date of occurrence which took place on February 27, 1977, he,(sic) Siri Parkash Singh and his brother Karam Singh P.W. were irrigating their land from their tubewell. The water course leading to their field which was being irrigated ran past the intervening field of the Appellants along the Pahi Pritam Singh Appellant came there and said that he would not allow the water to pass through that water course. He (Santokh(sic) Singh) told him that they would not stop irrigating their field from that water course. Pritam Singh Appellant felt annoyed and said that he would teach them a lesson in a few days On February 27, 1977 at about 9.10(sic) P.M., he and his brother Karam Singh were returning from their tubewell. As they reached near the field of Amar Singh they found the two Appellants and Karnail Singh lying ambush Pritam Singh gave a kara(sic) that they be caught hold of and finished. Pritam Singh was armed with Gandasi, Harbans Singh with a Sarajang, and Karnail Singh with a Gandhali Pritam Singh rushed towards him and stopped him from proceeding further. He gave a Ganadasi below on his head on the right side. He fell down and raised alarm. Karam Singh entreated the Appellants to desist from causing any further injury to him Harbans Singh gave a Safsjang(sic) blow on the right arm of Karam Singh, Harbans Singh also gave one Safaiang(sic) blow on his right hand. Karnsil(sic) Singh (Since acquitted) gave a Gandhali blow on his right leg. On hearing the alarm Bachan Singh and Naib Singh arrived there and witnessed the occurrence. Karnail Singh gave two Gandhali(sic) blows on Karam Singh''s head. The Appellants and Karnail Singh then (sic) away with their respective weapons. It was a moon lit night. The injured were taken to their house and removed to Civil Hospital, Ropar where they reached at 2.30 A.M. They were medically examined the police was informed. The Appellants were arrested. After the completion of the investigation, the Appellants and Karnail Singh were challaned u/s 307, 32(sic), 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, acquitted Karnail Singh, but convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated above. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

The prosecution case has been supported by P. Ws Santokh Singh and Karam Singh, who received injuries as also by P. W. Bachan Singh

Santokh Singh was medically examined at (sic) P.M. on February 28, 1977, in the Civil Hospital, Rupnagar by Dr. K.K. Kapur and three incised wounds apart from complaint of pain were found Injury (sic) which the doctor declared dangerous to life is: -

An incise(sic) wound (sic)3/4 � 2.5 cms � bone deep on the right side of scalp with clean but marging and papping dges,(sic) extending from the outer and of right eye brow upwards and backwards. A big blood clot was present in the wound.........

Karam Singh P. W. was medically examined at 1.45 A.M., on February 22,(sic) 1977, and two incised wounds and one lacerated wound were found. All the injuries were declared simple.

The medical evidence proves that Santokh Singh and Karam Singh received injuries at the time of alleged occurrence. The nature of injuries suffered by them is suggestive that they were caused from a close range(sic) the occurrence took place at 9 P.M. in the fields. It was a moonlit night. The injured, therefore could see the assailants(sic) The Appellants have been named as the assailants.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has not challenged the finding of the trial Court that the Appellants had participated in the occurrence. His argument, however, is that the injuries were caused to Santokh Singh and Karam Singh P. Ws. In exercise of right of private property According to him, the injured P Ws. started digging up the water course by the side of the land of the Appellants and the latter objected. The injured P. Ws. did not desist. The Appellants, therefore, caused injuries to them. This contention has no force. The occurrence did not take place near the water course of the injured P. Ws. It took place near the land of Amar Singh. The statements of the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place on the issue of water course but not at the time it was dug or near it inspires confidence and are true.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that Pritam Singh has been wrongly convicted u/s 307 Indian Penal Code. This contention appears to be correct. The he d(sic) injury suffered by Santokh Singh which the doctor declared as dangerous to life has already been reproduced above. This injury was bone deep. The doctor in his cross examination said that the depth was a quarter of a centimeter. The skull bone did not receive any cut. The doctor opined that but for the timely and adequate treatment given to Santokh Singh, he would have died. He declared the injury dangerous to life because of the nature of the wound and the condition of the patient due to the injury. The assessment made by the doctor appears to be somewhat exaggerated. The skull bone was neither cut nor fractured. The depth of the injury was minimal. It is highly improbable that this injury would have worsened the condition of the injured to such an extent that it would have proved dangerous to life. The learned trial court has, therefore, erred in convicting Pritam Singh u/s 307. Indian Penal Code on the basis of this injury. He appears to be guilty of an offence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that Pritam Singh is a young boy of 20 years Under the circumstances of this case, the Appellants may be given the benefit of probation and not sentenced to imprisonment. In my opinion, it will be appropriate to allow probation to the Appellants.

In the result, the conviction of Pritam Singh Appellant u/s 307(sic) Indian Penal Code is set aside and he is convicted u/s 374, Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Harbans Singh u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to both the Appellants is set aside and instead they are ordered to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 4000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roopnagar, for a period of 7/1/2(sic) years, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Each of the Appellants is directed to pay Rs. 500/ as compensation to the injured Santokh Singh and Karam Singh u/s 5(1) (a) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Each of the Appellants will further pay Rs. 250/- by way of litigation expenses u/s 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roopnagar on December 19, 1979.