Major Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Mr. D S Brar, Advocate for petitioners No. 3 and 4 Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.-

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The facts as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar are as under:- “The case against the appellants was registered on the basis of statement of Amar Singh that on 21.12.1993 at about 08.30 p.m. His nephews Gurdeep Singh and Gurcharan Singh were going to senior Secondary School, Gharyala, when appellant CRR No. 764 of 2003 2 Major Singh asked them that their father harassed them to erect the canal water and they gave 'khungra' while passing in front of their house that they will see them and their families. Under the fear his nephews came back to the house and he along with his son, Gurbax Singh was going to the police post to give the information and when they reached near the old police post, Major Singh son of Ajaib Singh armed with gandasi, Karaj Singh son of Tara Singh armed with gandasi, Pargat Singh armed with dang and Bagicha Singh armed with gandasi came there and Major Singh exhorted that they be not spared and be given a lesson for dispute over turn of water and in the meantime, Major Singh gave a gandasi blow which struck near the thumb of his right hand then Karaj Singh gave a gandasi blow which struck on his head and he fell down and when Gurbax Singh came forward to his rescue, Bagicha Singh gave a gandasi blow to Gurbax Singh, which struck on his right arm and his son raised noise mar ditta mar ditta and in the meantime his brother, Achhar Singh and Santa Singh son of Sohan Singh also reached from their house and after that the assailants run away from there along with their respective weapons. On the basis of this statement exhibit PA DDR No. 24 dated 24.12.1993 was recorded.” The trial court convicted and sentenced Major Singh and Bagicha Singh under section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of two years, whereas Karaj Singh and CRR No. 764 of 2003 3 Pargat Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three months under Sections 326/323 read with Section 34 of IPC. In appeal, the appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 326 and convicted the appellants under Sections 324/323/34 of IPC and sentenced as under:- U/secs RI Fine In default “ Name of of the accused IPC 1. Major Singh 324 9 months Rs.500 1 month 324/34 9 months - - 2. Bagicha Singh 323/34 3 months - - 323/34 3 months - -

3. Karaj Singh 323 3 months Rs.200 15 days 323/34 3 months - - and 324/34 9 months - - 4. Pargat Singh 324/34 9 months - - Sentences shall run concurrently.” While convicting the appellants, the Appellate Court recorded the following findings:- “Although independent witnesses should be examined, where it is available, but in the injury cases, the injured person will be the last person, who falsely implicates the person who did not cause the injury and will allow the person to go Scot free who caused the injury. Therefore, if the injured witnesses are consistent and their evidence is duly corroborated from the medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Therefore, in case independent person if not examined by the prosecution, it will not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution.” While acquitting the appellants under Section 326, the appellate Court rightly held although the doctor had stated on the visual examination, the injury to be grievous but had failed to mention the extent of the cut to the bone. Therefore, the same could not have been treated as CRR No. 764 of 2003 4 grievous. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no cross appeal has been filed by the State challenging the said finding of the Appellate Court. At the same time, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt on the evidence before it in the form of injured witnesses as well as the other evidence that the occurrence did take place as stated by the injured witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the said statement made by the injured witnesses. Thus, in view of the specific evidence of the Doctor as well as the injured witnesses, the petitioners have been rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 324/323/34 IPC as held by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in his order dated 26.03.2003 . The petitioners are facing litigation since 1993. The trial court had sentenced Karaj Singh and Pargat Singh only for three months under section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, whereas appellants No. 1 and 2 were sentenced to nine months. However, in appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged the petitiners under Section 326 IPC, but convicted them under Section 324/323/34 IPC. Thus, the sentence of three months under section 326/34 IPC could not have been increased to nine months qua appellants No. 3 and 4 under section 323/324/34. Accordingly, the total sentence of all the petitioners shall stand now modified and reduced to as having already undergone. At this stage, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners No. 3 and 4 that Bagicha Singh-petitioner No. 2 has since died. CRR No. 764 of 2003 5 Accordingly, the revision petition with respect to him shall stand abated. The revision petition is dismissed. However, the sentence awarded shall stand modified as above. March 16, 2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge CRR No. 764 of 2003 6