Santokh Singh @ Sukha v. State of Punjab

Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 20.11.08, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioners), for the offences, punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them, to various terms of imprisonment, and the judgement dated 12.12.09, rendered by the Criminal Revision No. 3323 of 2009 2 Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 25.05.07, Avtar Singh, complainant alongwith his cousin Harpal Singh, were unloading fertilizer, in their fields with a tractor-trolley, and for that purpose, they had engaged Vakil Singh, Baljit Singh, Ranjit Singh and Nikka Singh, as labourers. In the neighbourhood, Thana Singh, constructed his house, in the fiends, where he was residing. At about 8.00 PM, when the complainant and his cousin brought the last round and the trolley was unloaded by the labourers and they started spreading the fertilizer, in the fields, Santokh Singh @ Sukha, armed with a gandasi, Gurprem Singh @ Toti, armed with a stick (soti) and Thana Singh, empty handed, came there. Thana Singh, raised an exhortation that the complainant, should be taught a lesson, for playing tape-recorder, at a high pitch and should not be spared unhurt, as a result whereof, Santokh Singh, accused, gave a gandasi blow, on his (complainant's) head. The complainant started shirking and fell down. His labourers and cousin Harpal Singh, also came at the spot. Thereafter, Gurprem Singh, accused, gave a dang blow, on the person of the complainant, while he was lying, on the ground, which landed on his right foot. The complainant was rescued by Harpal Singh and his labourers. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. The complainant was brought to his house, by his labourers and Harpal Singh, on a tractor, wherefrom, he was removed to Civil Hospital, Kotkapura, by his father, where he was got medico- legally examined by the doctor. The motive behind the occurrence, was Criminal Revision No. 3323 of 2009 3 a dispute between the parties, regarding the demarcation of the land. On receiving information, Iqbal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector alongwith other Police officials, reached Civil Hospital, Kotkapura, where, he recorded the statement of the complainant, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered. The Investigating Officer, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan. He also took into possession the blood stained clothes and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 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 323 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.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Avtar Singh, complainant-cum-injured (PW1), Harpal Singh, an eyewitness to the occurrence (PW2), Darshan Singh (PW3), Iqbal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4), the Investigating Officer, Dr. Dalip Kumar (PW5), who medico-legally examined the injured, and, Jaswant Rai, Head Constable (PW6). 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 Criminal Revision No. 3323 of 2009 4 evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them that Sukhdeep Kaur, Ex-Sarpanch, was the mother of the complainant, against whom, a case under the Corruption Act was registered. It was further stated by them that the complainant party, had the apprehension, that the said case, was registered, against them, at the instance of the accused party, and, as such, they had been falsely implicated, in the instant case. They, however, examined Mander Singh (DW1), and, Praduman Singh (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, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellants, which was dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide judgement dated 12.12.09.

9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioners.

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

11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Avtar Singh, complainant-cum-injured, PW1, Harpal Singh, an eyewitness to the occurrence, PW2, Darshan Singh, PW3, Iqbal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW4, the Investigating Officer, Criminal Revision No. 3323 of 2009 5 Dr. Dalip Kumar, PW5, who medico-legally examined the injured, and, Jaswant Rai, Head Constable, PW6, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy and sufficient to hold the accused guilty. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, was got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The trial Court, was, thus, right in recording conviction. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld.

12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioners, be reduced suitably, as they have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 27.05.07, i.e. for the last more than 2 ½ years. He further submitted that during all these years, the revision-petitioners, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in this regard, appears to be correct. The sword of damocle's, has been hanging over the head of the revision-petitioners, for the last more than 2 ½ years. In my considered opinion, they must have learnt the lesson, by now. The ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 03 months each, instead of 06 months each, awarded by the trial Court, for the offences, punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to Santokh Singh, and, Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to Gurprem Singh. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, to this extent, is accepted. Criminal Revision No. 3323 of 2009 6

13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, is upheld. The order of substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioners, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for 03 months each, instead of rigorous imprisonment, for 06 months each, awarded by the trial Court, for the offences, punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to Santokh Singh, and, Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in relation to Gurprem Singh. The sentence of imposition of fine, and, in default of payment thereof, for the said offences, as also the substantive sentence, sentence of fine, and sentence, awarded in default of payment of fine, for the offence, punishable under Sections 323 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, shall however, remained unaltered. The substantive sentences, are ordered, to run concurrently.

14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement, 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.

02.03.2010 AMODH (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE