Ram Lubbaya vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Ram Lubbaya petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 326/324, Indian Panal Code. He was held guilty and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ for the offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ for the office under section 324 Indian Penal Code by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patti. Against this judgment recording his conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed partly and sentence awarded to him was reduced under both the counts by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar as per judgment dated April 10, 1986. The present revision petition has been filed to assail this Judgment.

The prosecution case in brief was that on March 26, 1984 Narinjan Singh PW hired the rickshaw of Sukhdev Singh, PW and brought it to his house as his daughter was to go to the bus stand along with her children. In the meantime, Ram Lubbaya petitioner arrived there armed with a Kirpan and attacked Sukhdev Singh. Kirpan blow hit Sukhdev Singh on his left hand. Narinjan Singh intervened when Ram Lubhaya also caused him an injury on his left arm with the Kirpan. Alarm raised by Sukhdev Singh and Narinjan Singh attracted Dalip Singh to the spot. On seeing him Ram Lubhaya fled away. The cause of occurrence was that earlier too Ram Lubhaya was having some dispute with Sukhdev Singh.

Narinjan Singh and Sukbdev Singh were removed to the hospital where they were medically examined. On the third day police visited Narinjan Singh and recorded his statement Exhibit PC, on the basis of which case was registered. Medical examination of Narinjan Singh was conducted by Dr. G.S. Sandh who observed an incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm on the posteriomedial aspect of left forearm on lower half, underlying bone was cut and there was profuse bleeding. The doctor declared this injury as grievous injury. Injury on the left hand of Sukhdev Singh was superficial.

The defense adopted by the petitioner was of complete denial. He deposed that he was falsely involved in the case and the witnesses had not told the truth. The suggestion given by him to the prosecution witnesses was that as he had filed a criminal complaint against Sukhdev Singh so Sukhdev Singh joined hands with Narinjan Singh and involved, him in this case with a view to pressurise him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the only evidence against the petitioner consisted of the statements of Narinjan Singh and Sukhdev Singh PWs. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place at about 2.00 p.m. in a bazar where many persons were present. Only Dalip Singh was cited as a witness but he too was given up as he was not likely to lend support to the prosecution version. Evidence regarding recovery of kirpan at the instance of the petitioner was already discarded by the learned Sessions Judge as the kirpan was not stained with blood. When there was no independent corroboration of the injured witnesses the delay in lodging the report assumed importance and rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. It was maintained that there was no proper explanation for reporting the matter to the police after three days of the occurrence when the police post was only at a distance of four furlongs from the place of occurrence and 100 yards from the hospital.

I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The occurrence took place on March 26, 1,984 and Narinjan Singh was medically examined at 3.30 p m. on the same day by the doctor, Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Sur Singh. The other injured Sukhdev Singh was examined at 4.15 p.m. Copies of the medico legal reports were sent to the police post immediately hereafter but statement of Narinjan Singh was recorded on 25th March. In order to explain this delay the prosecution examined Kundan Lal Sharma Pharmacist as PW6 who deposed that although Assistant SubInspector visited the hospital on 26th March and also on 28th March but the injured could not be declared fit to make a statement, the doctor having gone on tour. He made reports to that effect in writing which are Exhibits PG/1 and PG/2. These reports stand belied by the statement of the doctor himself and appear to be fabricated. On March 26, 1984, Assistant SubInspector Dara Singh submitted application Exhibit PG on which the Pharmacist made the report Exhibit PG/1 at 4.15 p.m. to the effect that doctor Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Sur Singh was on tour on that day while at 4.15 p.m. the doctor was very. much present in the hospital and was conducting the medicolegal examination of Sukhdev Singh. Time of examination is mentioned in the report Exhibit PB also. There than remains no doubt that the report was procured. It appears that the witnesses had no version to put and that is why it took such a long time to lodge the report. Even Exhibit PC, statement of Narinjan Singh cannot be considered as the First Information Report since Narinjan Singh deposed that after the occurrence he had gone to the police post and had narrated the occurrence to a police official who obtained his thumb impression. The injuries found on the person of the two injured were quite simple especially on the person of Sukhdev Singh which was superficial No limb was involved and both the injured could easily, go to the police post and report the matter. No reason is given as to why Sukhdev Singh did not make any statement to the police of the narrating the occurrence as he was the person who was alleged to have been attacked by Ram Lubhaya. The injury to Narinjan Singh was simply as he tried to intervene Sukhdev Singh when Narinjan the petitioner where Narinjan Singh even did not now his name and learnt the same from the persons who collected at the spot. Sukhdev Singh was he proper person who should have reported the matter to the police immediately. The hesitation of the victims to contact the police makes their version extremely doubtful when seen in the light of number and nature of injuries. Injury on the person of Narinjan Singh was declared grievous by the doctor without subjecting him to Xray examination. There is no assurance that in fact the bone was cut especially when the statements of the witnesses are inconsistent and discrepant on each and every aspect. Narinjan Singh stated that he remained in the hospital for ten to twelve days and Sukhdev Singh remained there for two/three days while Sukhdev Singh stated that he remained admitted in the hospital for about fifteen days and Narinjan Singh stayed for twenty six days. With the nature of injuries found on the person of Sukhdev Singh it is not believable that he remained in the hospital for, fifteen days nor his version that he became unconscious on receipt of the'' injury can be accepted. The occurrence was admittedly witnessed by a number of persons and shopkeepers but none came forward to support the ease of the prosecution. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner cannot be maintained.

For the reasons reacorded above, I accept this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him, fine paid by the petitioner be refunded to him.