Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

R.P. Nagrath, J.—By this Common order, CRR No. 2885 of 2010 and CRR No. 3015 of 2010 are being disposed of as these revision petitions arise out of the judgments of the Courts below rendered in FIR No. 48 dated 25.05.2001 under Sections 186, 353, 342, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) P.S. Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.

The facts of the case are briefly narrated:

that on 25.05.2001 an application was made by one Prem Singh son of Niranjan Singh against Mohinder Singh son of Niranjan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Kuldeep Singh sons of Mohinder Singh for abusing and extending threats to his life. That complaint was marked to ASI Balihar Singh-complainant for inquiry. He along with C1 Krishan Lal, C1 Sukhwinder Singh, went to the house of Mohinder Singh in village Mundian by associating Sarpanch Inder Singh, Panch Tarlochan. Mohinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh were present in their house. Ranjit Singh-co-accused was found under the influence of liquor. The complainant disclosed his identity to Mohinder Singh and also disclosed about the application of Prem Singh made against them. The complainant told them to join the investigation. In the meanwhile Ranjit Singh asked his father Mohinder Singh to call Rajinder Singh son of Nasib Singh etc. After some time Rajinder Singh, Baldev Singh sons of Nasib Singh reached there. It was at about 7:15 p.m. that Ranjit Singh, Rajinder Singh and Baldev Singh started abusing the Police party and forcibly snatched the file from the complainant. Rajinder Singh also told Mohinder Singh and his son Kuldeep Singh to detain the police officials inside the house by bolting the door and on his instructions Mohinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh closed the door. All the five persons started altercation with the police. Rajinder Singh along with accused Baldev Singh caught hold the uniform of complainant and he was also dragged. After hearing the alarm Balbir Singh son of Bhagat Singh and Swaran Singh son of Narain Singh reached the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by Inder Singh Sarpanch, Tarochan Singh Panch, Balbir Singh and Swaran Singh. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away after opening the door. Kuldeep Singh and Rajinder Singh also extended threats while leaving the spot. The accused persons have thus caused obstruction in the official duty of the complainant and restrained them inside the house.

On the basis of the statement of the complainant formal FIR u/s 186, 353, 342, 34 IPC was registered. Rough site plan was prepared by the investigating officer and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The uniform of ASI Balihar Singh was also taken into possession vide recovery memo attested by witnesses. On 6.6.2001 the investigation was entrusted to ASI Jatinder Pal Singh and accused surrendered in the Court of Sh. V.K. Goel on 25.06.2001 and obtained the bail and thereafter they were associated in the investigation. On completion of investigation the challan was presented against the accused.

The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The eye witness account of the version was testified by PW-1 HC Krishan Lal, PW-2 HC Sukhwinder Singh, PW-4 ASI Balihar Singh complainant who was stated to have been assaulted while he was performing his duties and PW5 Tarlochan Singh also an eye witness. There was also the medical evidence to corroborate the testimony of eyewitnesses by examining Dr. Jagdish Kaur-PW3 who conducted medico legally examination on the person of Balihar Singh PW-4 on 26.05.2001. The nature of injuries are as under:-

A linear abrasion 2.5 CM long oblique in direction just to the left of mid-line at the upper level of eiphisternam.

Two adjacent linear abrasions 1 cm apart each 2.5 cm long over outer middle of upper of forearm.

Complaint of pain over the left lateral chest wall, vague tenderness present.

Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court on proper analysis of evidence held the petitioners guilty of the charges under sections 186, 332, 342, 353 read with Section 34 of IPC.

When CRR 2855 of 2010 was listed for hearing CRM 7439 of 2013 on 06.02.2013, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they do not challenge the merits of conviction and confined the prayer only for extending them benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, having already undergone 2 months of imprisonment, out of total sentence of six months. In view of the overwhelming evidence comprising of eye-witness account supported by medical evidence, and in view of the firm findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below (based on proper analysis of evidence) the learned counsel for petitioners in CRR 3015 of 2010 has also not assailed these findings on merits. There is limited scope of interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless the Courts below have ignored important material on record or if palpably irrelevant approach was adopted. Therefore both the revision petitions are dismissed on merits.

On the question of sentence all the petitioners have already undergone about 2 months of imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Prem Singh on whose complaint the police party is stated to have gone to the house of petitioner Mohinder Singh etc. was having dispute of land which was already decided in favour of petitioners in the year 1991. It is stated that Civil Suit No. 34 of 1991 was decided in favour of Ranjit Singh on 11.03.1991 on the consent statement made by Prem Singh.

Looking into the facts of the case, injuries on the person of complainant and all the petitioners having already suffered 2 months of imprisonment, it would be appropriate if, the petitioners instead of being sent to jail for undergoing rest of imprisonment, are released on furnishing bonds of good conduct. The instant revision is thus partly allowed only to that extent directing the petitioners to furnish the bonds of good conduct for a period of six months each with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. They are also directed to deposit Rs. 1,000/- each as costs of litigation. The aforesaid compliance be made on or before 10.07.2014, failing which the revision petitions qua the defaulter shall stand dismissed in toto.