Harjinder Singh alias Jinda & Anr. v. State of Punjab

the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal which was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the courts below, Harjinder Singh alias Jinda and Darshan Singh alias Darshi have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the prosecution story Gurdial Singh had witnessed the incident and saved the complainant party from accused persons but he has not been examined and his non-examination renders the prosecution story doubtful. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that he had reached the place of occurrence on being raised alarm by the injured persons. He being not a witness to the entire occurrence, his examination was uncalled for. It is further maintained that there was delay of as many as 8 hours in lodging the F.I.R. inspite of the fact that Police Station was on the way to the hospital, which shows that the present case is the result of an after thought. This contention does not find favour with me. It is an accredited rule of law that delay per se is not Criminal Revision No.2684 of 2008 (O&M) 5 fatal to the prosecution case. The occurrence took place around 6.30 A.M. As per the medical evidence tendered by M.M. Singh PW-1 the injured Surjit Singh was medico legally examined at 9.00 A.M on 23.4.1998. The injured Gurcharan Singh was medico legally examined at 9.15 A.M. The statement of Gurcharan Singh injured was recorded at 1.45 P.M. Sometime would have certainly been lost in arranging the vehicle for taking the injured persons to the hospital. Other time would have consumed in covering the distance. As mentioned in the index of F.I.R. the distance between the village in which the occurrence took place and the Police Station is 13 miles. Thus, in my view the alleged delay stands satisfactorily explained. It is, further submitted that it is in the evidence of the Doctor that the complainant party could have suffered these injuries by fall. Thus, the prosecution story is falsified. Of course, Dr. M.M. Singh PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that “injuries No.2 and 3 on the person of Gurcharan Singh are possible by fall and striking against the sharp edged weapon by different fall but it is to be borne in mind that it is merely an opinionative evidence. Gurcharan Singh PW-2 and Surjit Singh PW-3 are the stamped witnesses. They could not be shattered or shaken when they were cross-examined. A careful delving into their cross-examination would reveal that no material favourable to the defence could be elicited. They stood like a rock. It is well settled that where the eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, the medical opinion pointing to alternative possibility is not accepted as conclusive. Thus, this submission being bereft of any merit is turned down. Criminal Revision No.2684 of 2008 (O&M) 6 No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. On analyzing and scrutinizing the entire evidence, it transpires that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted with in any manner. Sequelly, the same is maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this incident being pretty old, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since, April

1998. Thus this incident is 12 years old. The petitioners were admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 4.2.2009. Since then no untoward incident between the parties has been reported. It clearly indicates that they did not make misuse of this opportunity. As is borne out from the record, they have undergone five months of the actual sentence. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (5 months each). The head injury on the person of Gurcharan Singh complainant has been attributed to the petitioner Raju. Gurcharan Singh can be compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, the amount of fine inflicted upon the petitioner Raju is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/- which on realization shall be disbursed to Gurcharan Singh injured by the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine with the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. If he failed to deposit the same within three months, his revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and in that Criminal Revision No.2684 of 2008 (O&M) 7 eventuality, the trial Court shall give intimation in this regard to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, who in turn take the necessary steps to procure presence of this petitioner Raju and send him to the prison for serving the unexpired portion of his sentence. With this modification in the order of sentence, this petition fails and is dismissed. Since the petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE May 13, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No