Ujjagar Singh and Others vs The State of H.P.

D.B. Lal, J.—This revision is brought from the order of the Sessions Judge. Solan whereby agreeing with the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, he has convicted the Petitioner accused under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay certain amounts of fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment. The prosecution case related to a scuffle which took place between these accused and the injured Sahabu Din and Mir Din, father and son on the night of 4th September 1968. It was stated, that Sahabu Din was sitting and Mir Din was lying on a cot nearby. These accused came to the house of Sahabu Din and Ujjagar Singh challenged him and also abused him telling that he was appearing as a witness against him in a case filed by Sohan Lal. Budhi Singh accused was armed with a hatchet and he gave a blow on the head of Sahabu Din while Ujjagar Singh dragged Sahabu Din outside his house. When Mir Din intervened, Ujjagar Singh gave a blow by his hatchet on his right hand which resulted in grievous injury. Gian Singh (since acquitted) also gave a blow by the handle of has hatchet on the right hand of Mir Din and at the same place where the blow was struck by Ujjagar Singh. Thereafter Piara and Dalipa accused also belaboured both Sahabu Din and Mir Din with Lathies. The First Information Report was instituted on the next morning of 5-9-1968 and a case under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 326, I.P.C. was snstituted against these accused. Both Sahabu Din and Mir Din were medically examined by Dr. B.D. Verma and several injuries were found on their person.

The defence before the Magistrate was of a mutual fight as it was stated that the accused Ujjagar Singh and Budhi Singh also received a few injuries. It was asserted that these accused belaboured Sahabu Din and Mir Din in exercise of their right of self defence.

The prosecution produced 11 witnessess including Sahabu Din (P.W. 6), Mir Din (P.W. 2), Bir Singh (P.W. 5) and Indru (P.W. 4) who were the eye witnesses. Besides them Dr. B.D. Verma (P.W. 1) was produced to prove the injuries. The others witnesses are not very relevant for our purpose.

The accused also produced one witness and he narrated the version of the defence.

The learned Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence and convicted Ujjagar Singh u/s 326 I.P. Code while Budhi Singh u/s 324. The rest of the accused Piara and Dalipa were convicted u/s 323 I.P. Code.

Against the order of conviction these accused came in appeal before the Sessions Judge and Ujjagar Singh was acquitted u/s 326 but instead convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentence of Imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate was set aside and the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone and they were sentenced to various amounts of fine under these sections. The accused have felt aggrieved of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge and have come up in the present revision.

While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has to see the legality and propriety of the order made by the two Courts below. If questions of fact were believed and a set of evidence was considered reliable, the High Court will not introduce its opinion as long as a reasonable view regarding conviction could be taken on the basis of the evidence adduced. This is no part of the argument that any other Court left to itself may have acquitted the accused. As long as substantial justice was done and a reasonable view could be taken upon evidence produced that the accused party was the aggressor, they will be held liable for the offences imputed against them. The learned Counsel has not gone any far than asking the High Court to re-appraise the evidence which seldom is a right conferred by revision.

The four eye witnesses of whom the two were the injured were rightly believed by the Courts below. The mere fact that the accused had simple injuries which according to the learned Sessions Judge were "insignificant", a right of self defence cannot be made out. It is not even the duty of the prosecution in every case to prove how these accused sustained injuries. There is no hard and fast rule that simply because the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of the accused, their entire evidence should be discarded See Bhagwan Tana Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, That apart the injuries received by Ujjagar Singh or Budhi Singh or even Karam Kaur a lady said to be involved were rather simple and even if they were aggressors, and were instrumental in causing yet graver injuries upon Sahabu Din and Mir Din, these simple injuries could have been the result of their aggression. Therefore, no regard could be had to the injuries found on the person of the accused.

Some discrepancies were pointed out by the learned Counsel in the statements of the eye witnesses but none of the discrepancies was material. It could not be stated that the two witnesses Bir Singh and Indru were not present and did not see the occurrence as it took place. It is evident that the accused came to the house of the complainants and beat them. If the position was otherwise, Sahabu Din and Mir Din would have gone with more effective weapons and the injuries received by Ujjagar Singh and Budhi Singh would have been of more serious nature. Therefore, the nature of injuries received indicated that the aggressors were these accused. There was no question of sudden or grave provocation and the motive was of course there. The complainants had appeared as witnesses in the case of Sohan Lal and that is how Ujjagar Singh became inimical. He collected his people and be laboured the complainants.

The learned Sessions Judge has given the benefit to Ujjagar Singh because he was not sure if the grievous hurt was caused by him or Gian Singh accused. He has also reduced the substantive part of the sentence. The sentence of fine could in no case be considered excessive. The result is that I do not find any compelling reason to take a different view and the Petitioner accused were rightly convicted and sentenced under Sections 324 and 322 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision has no force and is, therefore, rejected.