Gurtej Singh v. State of Punjab

Judgment

3. Gurtej Singh son of Bir Singh son of Mukand Singh; Nautej Singh son of Bir Singh son of Mukand Singh; Jaspal Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Bukkan Singh; all residents of village Laleana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus State of Punjab. Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh r/o Laleana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda ...Respondents Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 Date of Decision: 01.02.2010 Gurtej Singh son of Bir Singh son of Mukand Singh; Nautej Singh son of Bir Singh son of Mukand Singh; Jaspal Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Bukkan Singh; all residents of village Laleana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 2

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This judgement shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 3112 of 2009, and, 3117 of 2009, filed by Gurtej Singh, Nautej Singh, and, Jaspal Singh, accused/revision-petitioners, against the judgment dated 23.10.09, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.10.08, rendered by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, with modification, to the extent, that the fine was also imposed upon the accused/revision-petitioners. The substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

2. On 20.11.02, Gurbachan Singh, was having his turn of irrigation, by canal water. On that day, Gurtej Singh and Nautej Singh alongwith Jaspal Singh, accused, were present, in their fields. At the fixed time, Gurbachan Singh, complainant, with the assistance of his servant Jugraj Singh, diverted the flow of water, towards his fields. Jaspal Singh, accused, came there and questioned him, as to how, he Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 3 diverted the flow without permission. He started abusing him. The complainant kept mum. The accused then went back. At about 5.30 PM, on the same day, the complainant, was present, in the street, in front of his house. Jaspal Singh, accused, armed with gandasa, Gurtej Singh, accused, armed with gandasa, and, Nautej Singh, accused, armed with iron sabbal, came there. Jaspal Singh, accused, raised an exhortation to teach lesson, to the complainant. Meanwhile, Ranjit Singh and Gurjeet Singh, brothers of the complainant also came there. Jaspal Singh, injured the face of the complainant, just below left eye next to nose, by giving a gandasa blow. The other gandasa blow, given by Gurtej Singh, also injured the face of the complainant, just below the left eye. The complainant fell down on the ground. Nautej Singh, gave a sabbal blow, which injured the face of the complainant, just below the left eye. The complainant, shouted for help. Upon this, all the accused, ran away, from the spot, with their respective weapons. On the basis of the statement of Gurbachan Singh, complainant, the first information report, was registered. Rough site plan was prepared. The accused, were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned.

3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused, were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.

4. Charge under Sections 326, 326 read with Section 34, 324, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 4

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gurbachan Singh, complainant-cum-injured (PW1), Ranjit Singh (PW2), Dr. Beant Singh Mann (PW3), Kulwinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), Dr. Manmohan Singh Deol (PW5), Dr. Anu Gupta (PW6), Dr. Parminder Kaur (PW7), and, Dr. Paramjit Singh (PW8). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence, was closed.

6. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They also examined Sunil Kumar (DW1), and, Dr. R.K. Gupta (DW2), in their defence. Thereafter, they closed the defence evidence.

7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, and at the same time, awarded compensation, but, did not impose fine upon the accused.

8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred, by the appellants, which was dismissed, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide judgement dated 23.10.09, with the modification, that the fine, was also imposed upon the appellants.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petitions, have been filed by the accused/revision-petitioners, one against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, and the other, against the imposition of fine, by the Appellate Court. Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 5

10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the medical evidence, was not in consonance with the ocular evidence. He further submitted that, no offence, punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out. He further submitted that, defence version, was most probable, but the same, was not taken into consideration, by the Courts below. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was discrepant, but, this fact, was not taken into consideration by the Courts below. He further submitted that the incriminating circumstances, appearing in the prosecution evidence, were not completely put to the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the sentence, awarded by the Courts below, was highly excessive. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, committed an illegality, by imposing fine, and, at the same time, maintaining the order of award of compensation. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside.

12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that all the points, highlighted by the Counsel for the accused/revision- petitioners, at the time of arguments, were taken into consideration, by the Courts below, in context with the evidence produced, and Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 6 ultimately, the revision-petitioners, were convicted and sentenced, and also the fine, was imposed, as imposition thereof, was mandatory, under the provisions of law. He further submitted that the judgements of the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, and, are liable to be upheld.

13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009, is liable to be dismissed, whereas, Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009, is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law that, this Court, in the revision-petition, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that there was misreading or misappreciation of evidence or law, on the point, or that some material evidence, had been ignored. The perusal of the judgements of the Courts below, clearly goes to show, that they scrutinized the evidence of Gurbachan Singh, PW1, the injured, who deposed with regard to the date, time and place of occurrence, the weapons, being wielded, by the accused/revision-petitioners, and the injuries, caused by them, on his person (Gurbachan Singh), which was duly supported, by Ranjit Singh, PW2, an eye-witness, Dr. Beant Singh Mann, PW3, who medico-legally examined the injured, Dr. Manmohan Singh Deol, PW5, Dr. Anu Gupta, PW6, Dr. Parminder Kaur, PW7, and, Dr. Paramjit Singh, PW8, and, were right, in coming to the Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 7 conclusion, that the same, was cogent, convincing, reliable, and sufficient to prove, that the accused/revision-petitioners, committed the offences, punishable under Sections 326, 326 read with Section 34, 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence, was completely, in consonance with the ocular evidence. The defence evidence, was also scrutinized, by the Courts below, and the same was not found to be reliable. There was neither misreading nor misappreciation of the evidence, nor any material piece of evidence, was ignored, by the Courts below. The judgements of conviction and the orders of sentence of the Courts below, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court.

14. No doubt, the trial Court, did not impose any fine, while recording conviction and awarding sentence, for the offence, punishable under Section 326 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellate Court, in para 25 of its judgement, in clear-cut terms, stated that, as per the provisions of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, imposition of fine is a must, and, therefore, it could not be taken only as an enabling provision, as held, by the trial Court. The Appellate Court, was, thus, right in imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, for the offence, punishable under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of the appellate Court, to this extent does not suffer from any illegality. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 8

15. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, however, submitted that the revision-petitioners, have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 21.11.02, the date, when the first information report was registered. He further submitted that, for more than 7 years, the revision-petitioners, have suffered a lot of physical pain and mental agony. He further submitted that the sentence, awarded by the Courts below, being excessive be reduced suitably. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in this regard, appears to be correct. Since the revision-petitioners, have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, for the last more than 7 years, they must have learnt a lesson by now. The ends of justice shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence, awarded to the revision-petitioners, for the offences, punishable under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced suitably. To this extent, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being correct, is accepted.

16. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009, is dismissed.

17. Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction is maintained. The order of substantive sentence, is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioners, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 1 ½ years, instead of 03 years, for the offence, punishable under Section 326 and 326/34 IPC, awarded by the trial Court. The substantive sentence, for the offences, Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2009 Criminal Revision No. 3117 of 2009 9 punishable under Sections 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also the sentence of fine and, in default of payment of fine, and the amount of compensation, awarded by the Courts below, shall remain unaltered.

18. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the order, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgement.

01.02.2010 AMODH (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE