Hind Pal & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 173, 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 186, 332, 353, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. A reddish contusion on inner side of mouth on right cheek. Amrit Kaur Nurse appeared as PW-2, Roshan Lal Ward Attendant as PW-3, ASI Phula Singh as PW-4, HC Sucha Singh as PW-5 and Dr.Barinder Singh appeared as PW-6. Sheela Devi PW-7 brought service…
Judgment
Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present Revision Petition has been preferred by Hind Pal son of Ram Chand, Gurdip Singh son of Nirmal Singh and Ajit Singh alias Gora son of Chanan Singh. FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PE made by Dr.Baldev Raj, MD Civil Hospital, Kapurthala to ASI Phula Singh. Complainant stated that he was posted as Medical Officer in Emergency Ward. On the night of 3rd June, 1996, his duty was to commence from 8.00 p.m. till 8.00 a.m. on the next day. Amrit Kaur, Roshan Lal and Balbir Singh were discharging their duty on that day as Nurse, Ward Attendant and Chowkidar respectively. On that day, at about
8.15 p.m. Goga son of Chanan Singh came to the hospital for medico legal examination, as he had suffered injuries. The doctor had drawn medico legal report No.46/BR/96 dated 03.06.1996. The doctor opined that there was no need to admit the injured/patient. At that time, Hind Pal, Gurdip Singh and Rajwinder Singh alias Dhanna came in the Emergency Criminal Revision No.1089 of 2004 2 Department. Hind Pal stated that why the doctor is not admitting Goga in the hospital. Hind Pal further told that he is President of Yuva Janta Dal, Kapurthala, therefore the doctor have to admit the patient. The doctor refused to do what was desired by the accused, upon which a fist blow was given on the face of the doctor. All the accused caused injuries. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused. Rajwinder Singh co-accused was declared Proclaimed Offender. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Kapurthala charged the accused petitioners for offence under Section 186, 332/34, 353/34 and 506 IPC. Dr.H.L. Mehmi PW-1 had examined Baldev Raj Medical Officer, on 3rd June, 1996 at 10.20 p.m. Following injuries were found on the person of Baldev Raj:
A reddish leniar oblique abrasion on front of nose, almost in the middle measuring 2 cm bleeding from the nose. Tenderness present over the bridge of nose. Advised X-ray.
A reddish abrasion 1/3 cm x 1/4 cm on right side ala of nose.
A reddish leniar abrasion on right side of the face measuring 3 cm placed longitudinally 1 ½ cm outer to right eye angle.
A reddish leniar abrasion 1 cm long on right side of the cheek, 1 cm outer to right side of nose.
A reddish leniar abrasion on left side of the cheek, 3 ½ cm long and placed obliquely, 1 cm outer to left eye. Criminal Revision No.1089 of 2004 3
Three reddish abrasions measuring ½ cm to 1 cm long leniar on left side of the cheek, at level of angle of mouth.
A reddish contusion on inner side of mouth on right cheek. Amrit Kaur Nurse appeared as PW-2, Roshan Lal Ward Attendant as PW-3, ASI Phula Singh as PW-4, HC Sucha Singh as PW-5 and Dr.Barinder Singh appeared as PW-6. Sheela Devi PW-7 brought service record of the witnesses. Dr.Baldev Raj SMO appeared as PW-8. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. They denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. On the basis of the above evidence led, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 186 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 332 IPC. The accused petitioners were also sentenced under Section 353 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further under Section 506 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Thereafter, accused had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed. Criminal Revision No.1089 of 2004 4 Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has stated that he is conscious of the fact that in the present case, injured Dr.Baldev Raj had appeared as PW-8 and had deposed against the petitioners. Counsel has submitted that he is also aware of the fact that Dr.Baldev Raj had no enmity or animus against the petitioners. However, the counsel has submitted that he will pray to this Court that taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence in the present case had taken place in year 1996 and petitioners have already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 14 years, the sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone or they may be released on probation. It is further submitted that petitioners have already undergone three months and 27 days of their actual sentence.
Counsel has submitted that the maximum sentence, which can be awarded under Section 332 and 353 IPC is one year. This Court is of the view that the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. In the present case, medical officer was discharging his duty. The accused, who were in their youth, compelled the doctor to act according to their wishes. On refusal they had taken law in their hands and gave beating to the doctor. But at the same time, this Court will not deny the benefit of protracted trial to the petitioners as same is to be construed as a mitigating circumstance. Thus, taking into consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioners under Section 332 and 353 IPC is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences awarded on varies counts shall run concurrently. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. Criminal Revision No.1089 of 2004 5 With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 15, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 173, 313; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 186, 332, 353, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 15 Feb 2010. The bench was KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.