Ajmer Singh v. Jarnail Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.352 of 2002. None for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.2182 of 2002. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order Criminal Revision No.352 of 2002 preferred by Ajmer Singh against Nazar Singh and others; and Criminal Revision No. 2182 of 2002 preferred by Jarnail Singh shall be decided together. Nazar Singh, Pritam Singh, Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh were named as accused in case FIR No.93 dated 28.12.1999 registered Criminal Revisions No.352 & 2182 of 2002 2 at Police Station Joga under Sections 336/325/323/34 IPC and sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. All the above said four accused were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Mansa, which acquitted all the accused for offence punishable under Section 336 IPC. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against Pritam Singh and Nazar Singh. They were acquitted for offences punishable under Section 323/325/336 read with Section 34 IPC and sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act. Whereas, the accused Sukhdev Singh and Jarnail Singh were held guilty of offence punishable under Section 323/325/34 IPC. At that time, Sukhdev Singh was aged less than 21 years, therefore, he was released on probation under Section 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Jarnail Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days under Section 325/34 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days under Section 323 IPC. Jarnail Singh was awarded a similar sentence on three counts and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the decision of the trial Court, Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh had filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa on 29th October, 2002, came to the conclusion that Sukhdev Singh, who had caused grievous injury, being less than 21 years of age, had been released on probation, therefore, the sentence of Jarnail Singh for offence under Section 325/34 IPC was reduced from one year to six months rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Revision No.2182 of 2002, the judgment of the appellate Court has been assailed, whereby the conviction of Jarnail Criminal Revisions No.352 & 2182 of 2002 3 Singh was upheld and his sentence was reduced from one year to six month rigorous imprisonment under Section 325/34 IPC. In Criminal Revision No.352 of 2002, the judgment of the trial Court, whereby Nazar Singh and Pritam Singh were acquitted, and Sukhdev Singh was released on probation is assailed. State had filed no appeal. This Court is of the view that Sukhdev Singh, who had caused grievous injury, being less than 21 years of age, has rightly been released on probation. Ajmer Singh had made a statement Ex.PA to Joginder Singh SHO Police Station Joga, in which he stated that he was resident of village Aklian, engaged in agricultural work. On the day of occurrence, he along with his father Amar Singh, was taking meals and at that time Gurnam Singh Member Panchayat also came there. At about 9.30 a.m. Jarnail Singh son of Ishar, who was having a dispute over the street, started removing the wall. At that time, Jarnail Singh along with his son Sukhdev Singh and Nazar Singh, who was father-in-law of Sukhdev Singh, accompanied by 7/8 persons came there. The father of the complainant objected as to why the wall was being removed. At that time, abuses were exchanged and brick bats were thrown. Nazar Singh fired a shot from his gun in the air. When the complainant party turned back to go inside their house, then Jarnail Singh and Sukhdev Singh threw brick bats, one of which hit the finger of left hand of Ajmer Singh and other hit his knee. Some of the brick bats had hit Amar Singh, father of the complainant also. In the present case, as per the prosecution itself, when the wall was being removed, an altercation had ensued and the accused had thrown brick bats. Ajmer Singh had suffered a lacerated wound of size

1.1 cm x 0.5 cm on the dorsal aspect of left ring finger. He was examined Criminal Revisions No.352 & 2182 of 2002 4 by Dr.Jagtar Singh PW-6, who stated that this injury could be self- suffered by a friendly hand. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, this Court is of the opinion that solitary grievous injury on left ring finger was caused by Sukhdev Singh, who was aged about 20 years at the time of occurrence and had been released on probation by the trial Court. So far as petitioner Jarnail Singh is concerned, even though he had thrown brick bats, yet no specific injury had been attributed to him. Even if it is held that injury No.2, which was on the knee, was due to hit of brick bat, which was thrown by Jarnail Singh, still that injury was simple in nature. In these circumstances, Jarnail Singh is also ordered to be released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for six months. He shall furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking that he shall maintain peace, good conduct and behaviour during the period of probation. In case the petitioner commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bonds, he shall be called upon by the trial Court to undergo the sentence awarded. With the observations made above, Criminal Revision No.2182 of 2002 is disposed of. However, there is no merit in Criminal Revision No.352 of 2002 and the same is hereby dismissed. April 26, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE