Rajbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Rajbir Singh and Gopal Ram were named as accused in case FIR No.71 dated 14.05.2000 registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar under Sections 452, 325, 323, 34 IPC. In the present case, HC Tilak Raj had recorded statement of Bimla. She stated that she was married with Bhusa Ram son of Gobind Ram. About 11 years ago, her husband expired. She had got four daughters and one son. Rajbir Singh accused petitioner was neighbourer of Bimla. Earlier the relations between the complainant and the accused party were cordial. About five years ago, Rs.1,20,000/- were given as loan by Bimla to the accused Rajbir Singh. Repeated requests of the complainant to the accused to return the loan had borne no fruit. On 14th May, 2000 at about 7.00 a.m. Rajbir accused accompanied by his brother- in-law Gopal Ram were passing through the street close to the house of the complainant. The complainant told Rajbir that her daughters were of Criminal Revision No.1103 of 2005 2 marriageable age and the loan amount should be returned. Upon this, Rajbir and his brother-in-law Gopal Ram gave abuses. Few minutes later, accused returned with heavy wooden Balas (wooden log). They entered the house. Rajbir gave a blow of wooden stick on the left hand of the complainant. Gopal Ram gave Bala blow on the right leg of the complainant. Daughters of the complainant, Santosh and Babloo came forward to rescue the complainant. Rajbir gave two blows from the wooden log to Santosh, one blow landed on the back side of head of Santosh and second blow hit her left ear. Gopal Ram gave a blow of wooden log on the left shoulder of Santosh. Rajbir gave another blow on the left side of the forehead of Babloo, daughter of the complainant. Gopal Ram gave bala blow on the left arm of Babloo. On hearing noise Ram Kumar son of Kharaj Ram and Om Parkash son of Bhagi Ram were attracted at the spot. On the statement made by Bimla, case FIR was registered, which was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Complainant Bimla appeared as PW-3, Santosh and Babloo as PW-4 and PW-6 respectively. Counsel for the petitioner has read the statement of Dr.S.K. Juneja Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Abohar, who appeared as PW-2. This witness radiologically examined complainant Bimla on 17th May, 2000 and had found fracture of base of 5th metacarpal bone and no collous formation was seen. This related to injury No.1 on the person of Bimla. This witness also examined Santosh and no fracture was found on her person. Similarly, the Radiologist examined Babloo also and revealed no bony injury. Therefore, in the occurrence, only injuries on the left hand of Bimla was found grievous falling under the ambit of section 325 IPC. On the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Abohar found the petitioners guilty of offence under Criminal Revision No.1103 of 2005 3 Section 452, 325, 323 and 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 452 IPC. The petitioners were further sentenced under Section 325 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They were also sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal. The appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal dismissed the same. Conviction was upheld and sentence was maintained. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has placed on record affidavit of Lakhminder Singh Jakhar, PPS-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, in which it is stated that both Rajbir Singh and Gopal Ram have undergone four months two days and four months three days respectively as actual sentence out of the sentence awarded to them. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that in the present case, initially when the accused were present in the street, they were empty handed. It is on the protest made by the complainant that abuses were exchanged and at the spur of the moment occurrence had ensued. It is further submitted that all injuries except injury No.1 are simple and the only grievous injury is also on the left hand of Bimla complainant. Counsel has further submitted that the accused petitioners and the complainant party are neighbourers. Earlier thereto, relations between both parties were cordial and after the occurrence also, Criminal Revision No.1103 of 2005 4 no other incident has taken place. Counsel has further submitted that sending the petitioners behind the bars may disturb the prevailing peace. Counsel has prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to reform themselves and lead a life of rectitude. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case petitioners are ordered to be released on probation under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year. Petitioners are directed to furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur with an undertaking that they will maintain peace, good conduct and behaviour during the period of probation. However, cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.15,000/- qua each accused. The petitioners will be called upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to furnish bonds and deposit the cost. The cost of litigation, so deposited, shall be disbursed equally to Bimla complainant, Santosh and Babloo. In case the petitioners commit breach of any of the terms and conditions of the bonds, they will be called upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur to undergo the sentence awarded. Non deposit of the amount of cost shall be construed as dismissal of the present revision petition and benefit of probation shall not accrue to the petitioners. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 17, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE