Teja Singh and Ors. vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Darshan Singh and Teja Singh were tried, convicted and sentenced as under by the trial Magistrate :

(1) Darshan Singh was convicted and sentenced under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and a fine of Rs. 300, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months, and under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for four months.

(2) Teja Singh was convicted and sentenced under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 200 in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month, and under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Their conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner came up in revision in this Court. Notice regarding sentence was given by me on 19th September, 1985.

Darshan Singh petitioner is the son of Teja Singh petitioner. Both of them are alleged to have caused injuries to Nachhattar Singh PW on 5th June, 1983, at about 7 p.m. Both were allegedly armed with gandasas. Nachattar Singh PW was medically examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar PW1 who found the following injuries on his person :

(1) Incised wound on the palmer surface of right hand, 11 cm x 5 cm x bone deep. It was transverse in direction. Clotted blood present.

(2) Incised wound on the fixer surface of left forearm 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep. It was 3 cm above the wrist joint. Clotted blood and fresh bleeding was present.

(3) Curved incised wound on the left forearm over the anterio lateral surface 8 cm x 2cm x bone cut. Clotted blood and fresh bleeding was present. It was 1 cm above injury No. 2

Out of the three injuries, only injury No. 1 was got Xrayed. This injury was found to be simple in nature. Although injury No. 3 was not got Xrayed, Dr. Vijay Kumar PW1 declared it to be grievous. This injury is on the left forearm of Nachhattar Singh. While declaring this injury to be grievous the doctor did not give any reasons nor did not he see that any bone was cut underneath nor did he describe the depth of the cut.

Mr. G.S. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has placed reliance on Kailash Parshad Kanodia and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980, S.C. 106, where their Lordships observed as under :

"It appeared from the medical evidence that PW Bishwanath did not sustain any grievous injury. He has not received any serious injuries on any vital part of the body. The doctor admits that he did not find any fracture of a satisfied that a charge under S. 326 must necessarily fail........"

I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view the medical evidence in the case the charge under section 326 or 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Consequently, Darshan Singh petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Teja Singh is acquitted of the charge under section 326/34 of the Penal Code. However, the conviction of Teja Singh under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and that of Darshan Singh under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. Since both the petitioners are first offenders I think that the ends of justice would be amply met if they are given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Consequently, I suspend the sentence of imprisonment of both the petitioners and order that they be released on probation on their furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bond in the sum of three thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year and to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. However, each one of the petitioners would pay Rs. 1,500 payable as compensation to Nachhattar Singh injured. The fine already recovered would be adjusted towards the compensation. If the compensation is not paid within two months, the petitioners would be called upon to serve the sentence under sections 324 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in view of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, no disqualification would be incurred by the petitioners due to this conviction. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Revision dismissed.