Lachhman Singh v. Rajinder Singh

of the injured Swaran Singh, on the basis of which FIR was registered at Police Station Morinda on the said date. Investigating Officer went to the spot, prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. On the disclosure statement made by them on9.9.1995, gandasis were got recovered at their Criminal Revision No. 926 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2004 -3- instance. The completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused were charged under Section 326/324/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined Dr. Satish Kumar, Senior Resident, P.G.I. Chandigarh (PW1). He has proved the original medico-legal case summary of Surinder Kaur and stated that Surinder Kaur had suffered compound fracture of left arm and head injury. Dr. Harpret Singh, Junior Resident, Surgery Department, P.G.I. (PW2) who had medico-legally examined Swaran Singh on 29.7.1995 found four injuries on his person. He had proved the medico-legal report Ex.PW2/A. He has further stated that on the same day he had examined Surinder Kaur and found the following injury on her person :- “Fracture left humorous.” Swaran Singh (PW3) and Surinder Kaur (PW6) are the injured eye witnesses, whereas Mohinder Singh (PW5) has also given the eye witness account. Sucha Singh (PW4) has proved the police request Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/C dated 30.7.1995 on which doctor made his endorsement Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/D respectively. It would be significant to mention here that the injured Swaran Singh was again examined on 4.8.1995 by Dr. R.S. Bhatia who after examining him pointed out eight injuries out of which injuries No.2 and 8 were declared as simple in nature. Later on, injury No.1 was also declared as simple. He had also examined Surinder Kaur and observed one injury. He has further deposed that on receipt of x-ray report, he declared the said injury to be grievous in nature. SI Tilak Raj (PW8) is the Investigating Officer and Pritpal Kaur (PW9) has proved the x-ray films. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, the accused tendered documents mark D-1 to D-3. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Criminal Revision No. 926 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2004 -4- Arguments heard. Record perused. The occurrence in this case took place on 29.7.1995 at about

7.00 p.m. in which Swaran Singh and Surinder Kaur suffered injuries. They were shifted to Civil Hospital, Morinda, from where they were referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh. On receipt of the ruqa by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Morinda, he went to P.G.I. at 9.15 p.m. on 29.7.1995. However, the concerned doctor vide documents Ex.PC, Ex.PC/1, Ex.PD and Ex.PD/1 declared them unfit to make the statement. Consequently, on

30.7.1995 at about 11.40 a.m. both the injured were declared fit to make the statement by the concerned doctor of P.G.I. Chandigarh, then statement of Swaran Singh Ex.PB was recorded, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PB/2 was registered at Police Station on 30.7.1995 at 1.40 p.m. The delay in lodging the FIR as contended by the learned counsel for the accused stands fully explained and no force could be found in the contention of the accused that on account of delay the prosecution has exaggerated its version and some embellishments have been made. As regards the other argument that ocular version does not fit in with the medical evidence. Both the injured witnesses state that accused Rajinder Singh and Lachhman Singh gave gandasi blow each on his forehead. Lachhman Singh inflicted another gandasi blow on his right elbow whereas Rajinder Singh inflicted gandasi which hit on the back of the right hand. Lachhman Singh inflicted another gandasi blow on Surinder Kaur. This fact stands supported by Swaran Singh (PW3). But on perusal of the testimony of Swaran Singh (PW3), it also transpires from the evidence that immediately after the occurrence, the accused was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Morinda from where they were shifted to P.G.I. Chandigarh. Both Swaran Singh and Surinder Kaur were examined twice. First, by Dr. Harpreet Singh on 29.7.1995 and thereafter by Dr. R.S. Bhatia Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Morinda, (PW7). On minute comparison of the injuries as detected by two doctors, the grievous injuries as detected by both the doctors synchronize with each other. In any case, on perusal of MLR Ex.PA/1, proved by Dr. Harpreet Singh (PW2), it is clear that the alleged history of the injury on the person of Surinder Kaur was written by the concerned doctor. From the perusal of the statement Dr. Harpreet Singh Criminal Revision No. 926 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2004 -5- (PW2), it could well be observed that both the injured were medico-legally examined on 29.7.1995 in P.G.I. Chandigarh. In these circumstances, their medical examination by Dr. R.S. Bhatia (PW7) in Civil Hospital, Morinda being at a latter stage is of no consequence. In any case, on perusal of the testimony of Dr. R.S. Bhatia (PW7), who proved the x-ray reports of both the injured Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/D respectively, opined that there was a fracture at the lower 1/3rd of shaft of left arm. Thus, apparently, injuries suffered by Surinder Kaur at the hands of Lachhman Singh were found to be grievous in nature. However, the injuries on the person of Swaran Singh were found to be simple in nature. Their testimonies stand corroborated by the ocular version. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the element of common intention to cause injuries to Surinder Kaur and Swaran Singh by the accused is missing. In this regard, it is also observed that both the witnesses have consistently testified that it was when Surinder Kaur informed her husband that the accused had come to their house and had abused Bhagwan Singh, they again came armed with gandasi and exhorted them to come out and thereafter, when Swaran Singh came out, he was inflicted injuries with gandasies and when Surinder Kaur came at his rescue, then Lachhman Singh inflicted gandasi blow hitting on her right arm resulting into fracture of right arm. Even thereafter, both the accused again caused injuries to Swaran Singh. Thus, the aforesaid evidence, is sufficient to constitute meeting of minds between the accused. They came earlier when Swaran Singh was not at his house and later on they again came armed with weapons. When the accused had gone to lodge the protest and caused injuries to the complainant party. As regards the argument that the accused party also suffered injuries and the same were not explained by the complainant party. The impugned judgment when gone through clarifies the entire scenarios. Admittedly, a cross case was registered against Swaran Singh and Surinder Kaur. However, the trial court did not believe the version as set up by the accused persons in that case and observed that the injuries on the person of Lachhman Singh had been managed in connivance with the doctor. The Criminal Revision No. 926 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2004 -6- relevant extract of the trial court judgment reads as under :- “22........ From these circumstances, it is evident that cross case remained pending against complainant, his wife and Bhagwan Singh for causing injuries on the person of Lachhman Singh and Rajinder Singh on 29.7.1995. However, in the said cross case complainant Swaran Singh, his wife Surinder Kaur and father Bhagwan Singh were acquitted by the learned trial court. The judicial file of the cross-case was called from the record room. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court in the cross case, it is clear that the learned trial court held that the injuries on the person of Lachhman Singh had been managed in connivance with the doctors. The learned trial court further held that the injuries had been manipulated by the complainant party i.e. Lachhman Singh and Rajinder Singh to make it a case so as to counter the injuries on the person of the accused, in that case namely Swaran Singh and Surinder Kaur......” In these circumstances, the accused cannot get benefit of the plea that the injuries allegedly suffered by them were required to be explained and resultantly they cannot get benefit of such injuries. It is further observed that both the courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the accused caused grievous as well as simple injuries to Swaran Singh and Surinder Kaur. No such illegality, perversity or manifest error apparent on the record has been pointed out which may warrant interference in the impugned judgment. The interference in the judgment at this revisional stage could be made only if the judgment is against the facts; recorded on mis-appreciation of the evidence; if some evidence has not been considered or there is any defect or illegality in the conduct of procedure or trial, resulting into serious prejudice to the accused; or if there is any such manifest error apparent on the record which may result into miscarriage or failure of justice, but no such illegality has been Criminal Revision No. 926 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2004 -7- pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is to be confirmed. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the accused has prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having pondered over this argument, keeping in view the fact that the grievous injury on the person of Surinder Kaur is on the non vital part of her body and that on the person of Swaran Singh was found to be simple in nature. Thus in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the sentence passed against the accused Lachhman Singh under Section 326 IPC is reduced to 1- ½ years. Similarly, sentence awarded to Rajinder Singh under Section 326/34 IPC is reduced to one year without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the sentence awarded against them under Sections 324 and 324/34 IPC would remain intact. With the above modification in the sentence, both the petitions stand dismissed. October 28, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge