Makhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Makhan Singh, Sulakhan Singh and Baljit Singh were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 325, 325 read with Section 34, 324, 324 read with -2- Criminal Revision No.1783 of 2004. Section 34, 323 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). The maximum sentence awarded to appellant Sulakhan Singh under Section 325 was rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years besides fine of Rs.1,000/- and to appellants Makhan Singh and Baljit Singh the maximum sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for one year besides fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code as the sentences awarded for the aforesaid offences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners went in appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. Hence this revision petition by the petitioners. I have heard Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered on the statement of complainant-injured Balwinder Singh. On 13.3.1999 at about

11.30 A.M, appellants Sulakhan Singh, Makhan Singh and Baljit Singh, whose land adjoined the land of the complainant, started cutting `Tahli' tree standing on the bak of Panchayat `Pahi' falling in between the land of the complainant and of the accused. The said `Tahli' tree was in the land of the complainant. At that time, appellant Baljit Singh was armed with a`Dang', appellant Sulakhan Singh was armed with a `Kahi' and `takua' and appellant Makhan Singh was armed with a `Kahi' and `takua. Complainant Balwinder Singh and his father Banta Singh were talking -3- Criminal Revision No.1783 of 2004. with Jagjit Singh at that time in their Farm House. When they saw the accused cutting `Tahli' tree, complainant and his father went to the accused and stopped them from cutting the three. Jagjit Singh also followed them. The complainant and his father requested the accused to get the demarcation conducted from `Patwari. However, appellant Sulakhan Singh and Makhan Singh picked up `takuas' whereas appellant Baljit Singh picked up a `Dang'. Appellant Sulakhan Singh proclaimed that they would cut the complainant and his father first and thereafter they would cut the tree as they could not stop them from cutting the tree. Thereafter, appellant Sulkhan Singh gave a `takua' blow hitting the complainant at the back side and his right ear. Appellant Makhan Singh gave a blow with `takua' which hit forehead and left side of the forehead of the father of the complainant. Appellant Baljit Singh gave a `dang; blow which landed on the head of the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant fell down. Appellant Baljit Singh then gave five `dang' blows out of which four hit on the back and one on the left arm of the complainant. Appellant Makhan Singh gave a blow from the reverse side of `takua' which hit on the right shoulder of the complainant. Makhan Singh and Sulakhan Singh then gave one blow each from the reverse side of their `takuas' which landed on the back side of the neck, back side of right hand of the father of the complainant. Jagjit Singh tried to rescue them from the accused. Accused Baljit Singh gave five `dang' blows on the person of Jagjit Singh which landed on his left shoulder, thumb of left hand, back side of shoulder and back. The alarm raised by the injured attracted -4- Criminal Revision No.1783 of 2004. Gurnam Singh and Darshan Singh to the spot. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. The ocular version in this case has been furnished by complainant Balwinder Singh (P.W.1) and his father Banta Singh (P.W.2). Both of them having received injuries in the occurrence are the stamped witnesses of the prosecution. Their version has been corroborated by Gurnam Singh (P.W.5) who had been attracted to the scene of crime on hearing an alarm raised by the injured. No doubt, Jagjit Singh (P.W.3) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile, but it hardly affects the veracity of the prosecution case which stands proved on record by the evidence furnished by complainant Balwinder Singh (P.W.1), Banta Singh (P.W.2) and Gurnam Singh (P.W.5). A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. The ocular version in this case gets complete corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Lakhbir Singh (P.W.6) and Dr. S.K. Juneja (P.W.9). Dr.Lakhbir Singh (P.W.6) had medico- legally examined injured Balwinder Singh, Banta Singh and Jagjit Singh. Ten injuries were observed on the person of complainant Balwinder Singh, four on the person of Banta Singh and five on -5- Criminal Revision No.1783 of 2004. the person of Jagjit Singh. Dr. S.K.Juneja (P.W.9) upon radiological examination had observed fracture of head of 5th metacarpal bone of injured Banta Singh. Ten injuries found on the person of complainant Balwinder Singh, which were sharp and blunt weapon injuries, were attributed to appellants Sulakhan Singh, Makhan Singh and Baljit Singh. Out of the four injuries on the person of Banta Singh, two were blunt weapon injuries and two were sharp weapon injuries. The grievous injury i.e fracture of head of 5th metacarpal bone of injured Banta Singh, which was the result of a blunt weapon, had been attributed to appellant Sulakhan Singh. The five simple injuries on the person of Jagjit Singh, which were caused by `Dang', a blunt weapon, were attributed to appellant Baljit Singh. As such, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. 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. March 08, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE