Gurnam Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Gurnam Singh, Harbinder Singh and Jugraj -2- Criminal Revision No.769 of 2000. Singh, vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 25.2.2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, were convicted under Sections 323/ 325/ 326/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and maximum sentence awarded to the petitioners under Sections 326, 326 read with Section 34, 325, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the Code was rigorous imprisonment for one year besides total fine of Rs.1,000/-, for various offences, was imposed on each of the petitioner as the sentences awarded for these offences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners went in appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. Hence this revision petition by petitioners Gurnam Singh, Harbinder Singh and Jugraj Singh. I have heard Mr.A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate,assisted by Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab, and have gone through the records of the case. Complainant Balwinder Singh is the real brother of accused-appellant Harbinder Singh whereas accused-appellant Gurnam Singh is the father of the complainant. The dispute was with regard to land inherited by complainant Balwinder Singh, accused-appellant Harbinder Singh, their father Gurnam Singh and the sister of complainant Balwinder Singh from Puran Singh ( grand-father of the complainant from maternal side) as Puran Singh had no son and the mother of the complainant was the -3- Criminal Revision No.769 of 2000. only daughter of Puran Singh. The mother of the complainant had died about eight months prior to the occurrence and after her death the land located at Village Virk Kalan was inherited by the complainant, his brother, his father and his sister in equal shares i.e to the extent of about 2 killas of each. Mutation of the land was accordingly entered and sanctioned in their favour. Gurnam Singh, father of the complainant had given the entire land on lease to accused-appellant Jugraj Singh despite the fact that the complainant did not want to do so. The complainant wanted to irrigate himself the land which had fallen to his share. On

18.5.1995 at about 1.45 A.M, the complainant along with Nand Singh, Dial Singh and Bhag Singh went to water the land falling to his share. At that time, Gurnam Singh, father of the complainant, while armed with a `Gandasa', Harbinder Singh, brother of the complainant, while armed with a `Dang' and Jugraj Singh, also armed with a `Dang' were already present in the field. When the complainant was going to divert the flow of water towards his fields, appellant Gurnam Singh inflicted a `Gandasa' blow from its sharp side on the right side of head of the complainant. Appellant Harbinder Singh inflicted a `Dang' blow on the left knee of the complainant, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. While the complainant was lying down on the ground, appellant Jugraj Singh gave a `Dang' blow on the right side of his chest. When Dial Singh and Nand Singh came forward to rescue the complainant, accused Gurnam Singh gave a `Gandasa' blow from it sharp side on the right hand of Dial Singh. Accused Harbinder -4- Criminal Revision No.769 of 2000. Singh inflicted a `Dang' blow on the right arm (near wrist) of Dial Singh. Accused Gurnam Singh also caused a `Gandasa' blow on the right side of mouth of Nand Singh. More injuries were caused by the accused to the complainant party. After causing injuries, the accused went away from the spot with their respective weapons. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement (Exhibit P.A) made by the complainant before the police. It is a case where the accused-appellants admitted the occurrence while making their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but their case is that they had attacked the complainant party in self defence when the complainant party came to the fields to take forcible possession of the land. They stated that Balwinder Singh (complainant), Nand Singh and Dial Singh, at that time, were armed with spades. When they attacked the accused with spades, the accused caused simple injuries on their (Balwinder Singh, Nand Singh and Dial Singh) persons in exercise of right of private defence of their persons and property. Dial Singh (P.W.1), Nand Singh (P.W.3) and complainant Balwinder Singh (P.W.4) are the stamped witnesses of the prosecution, having received injuries in the occurrence. There are fifteen injuries on the person of complainant Balwinder Singh, eight injuries on the person of Dial Singh and four injuries on the person of Nand Singh. Four injuries on the person of Dial Singh were grievous in nature and one injury on the person of Nand -5- Criminal Revision No.769 of 2000. Singh was also grievous in nature. It shows that the complainant party was mercilessly beaten by the accused. Not even a single injury was found on the person of any of the accused. Without dilating any further on the issue, non-presence of even a single injury on the person of any of the accused shows that the complainant party had not attacked the accused party. The question of right of private defence of body or property did not arise in this case. Besides, as mentioned above, mutation in respect of the land in question had already been sanctioned in favour of the complainant and others. From the evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the complainant party had gone to the fields in order to assault the accused party. If they had gone with the intention of assaulting the accused party or taking forcible possession of the suit land from them, then they could have caused injuries on the person of the accused. A perusal of the medical evidence on record shows that complainant Balwinder Singh had sustained fifteen injuries on various parts of his body. Injury No.1 was caused by sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Similarly, Dial Singh had sustained as many as eight injuries out of which one injury was caused with sharp-edged weapon and seven injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Four injuries on the person of Dial Singh were found grievous in nature. Nand Singh had sustained four injuries, out of which one injury was grievous in nature and one injury was received with sharp-edged weapon. So, in all the injured had sustained 27 injuries at the hands of the accused, which fact clearly shows that the -6- Criminal Revision No.769 of 2000. complainant party was not the aggressor. The attack was, in fact, opened by the accused when the complainant had tried to water the disputed field, the mutation of which had already been sanctioned in his name. As such, the petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 25, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE