Faqir Singh v. State of Punjab

The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of the statement made by Sukhbir Kaur (complainant) wife of Sarabjit Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that her husband Sarabjit Singh had sown sugarcane in the field of Kunan Singh. When Sarabjit Singh, husband of the complainant and her son Bikramjit Singh had loaded sugarcane crop in the trolley and were about to leave, then Kunan Singh stopped them and told them that he wanted to Crl. Rev. No.1810 of 2010 [2] sell the sugarcane crop of his share and as such his share of sugarcane be unloaded from the trolley. Sarabjit Singh and his son Bikramjit Singh had taken land of Kunan Singh on lease. It is for the said reason that Kunan Singh was asking Sarabjit Singh and his son Bikramjit Singh to unload his share of sugarcane from the trolley. Sarabjit Singh, husband of the complainant, asked Kunan Singh that let him sell sugarcane crop and he would pay the price of the share of the sugarcane to him. However, Kunan Singh did not agree to this and as such a dispute arose between them. The matter was got compromised on 15.11.2001 by Inderjit Singh, Numberdar of the village and it was agreed that Sarabjit Singh, husband of the complainant would proceed with the sugarcane crops and give the price of the share of sugarcane crops to Kunan Singh. On 16.11.2001, at about

11.00 a.m. Bikramjit Singh, Palwinder Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh, cashier of Mahila Mandal and the complainant were sitting in their house when Kunan Singh empty handed accompanied by the petitioner Faqir Singh who was armed with a ‘datar’ came to the house of the complainant. Faqir Singh (petitioner) started hurling filthy abuses to Sarabjit Singh husband of the complainant and Bikramjit Singh, son of the complainant, stopped him. Kunan Singh raised a Lalkara whereupon Faqir Singh (petitioner) gave a ‘datar’ blow to Bikramjit Singh which hit him on his left shoulder. When the complainant came forward to rescue her son Bikramjit Singh, the petitioner Faqir Singh (petitioner) also gave a ‘datar’ blow to her and in order to ward off the blow, she raised her right hand but the blow hit her middle finger. Crl. Rev. No.1810 of 2010 [3] One datar blow from its reverse side was inflicted on the back of the complainant. Bikramjit Singh raised an alarm whereupon the accused fled away from the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Bikramjit Singh and Palwinder Kaur. The injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Baba Bakala where they were medically examined. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has released Kunan Singh, accused-convict on probation for two years with costs of proceedings of ` 1000/- subject to furnishing of probation bond in the sum of ` 5000/- with one surety in the like amount. However, the petitioner has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years; besides, to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; besides, to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner aggrieved against the same has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the injury on the thumb of the person of Sukhbir Kaur, complainant is not shown to be established as the Radiologist in the case has not been examined. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as he was Crl. Rev. No.1810 of 2010 [4] a witness against the complainant’s husband namely Sarabjit Singh in FIR Ex.DW1/1 which was registered on the complaint of Kunan Singh for the offences under Sections 447 and 511 IPC. A reference has been made to the case of State of Haryana v. Prem Singh, 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.) 537 (D.B.) (P&H). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. The question regarding inflicting of injury on the thumb of Sukhbir Kaur, complainant has been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It was noticed that Dr. Arvinderjit Singh (PW6) had specifically deposed that on 21.11.2001, that he conducted X-ray (Ex.P1) of the right hand of the complainant Sukhbir Kaur wife of Sarabjit Singh and observed fracture. It was further observed that on the basis of the said observation of the Radiologist, Dr. G.S. Randhawa, who conducted the medico-legal examination of the complainant, declared injury No.2 on the person of Sukhbir Kaur as grievous vide his report Ex.PW/4/C. In the case of State of Haryana v. Prem Chand (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused had inflicted two knife injuries to the victim and the doctor opined that one injury was dangerous to life on the basis of X-ray report. However, the Radiologist who conducted the X-ray of the injury had not been examined and the X-ray was not proved. In the present case, however, Dr. Arvinderjit Singh (PW6) has been examined and he has deposed that he conducted the X-ray Ex.P1 of the right hand of Sukhbir Kaur. Therefore, the Radiologist has been examined and the X-ray has also Crl. Rev. No.1810 of 2010 [5] been proved as Ex.P1. It is on the basis of the said observation of the Radiologist that Dr. G.S. Randhawa who conducted the medico-legal examination declared injury No.2 on the person of the complainant to be grievous. The other contention that the petitioner was a witness in the FIR (Ex.DW1/1) registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 511 IPC at the instance of Kunan Singh against Sarabjit Singh has also been considered by the Courts below. It has been observed that the same relates to some other incident which occurred on 31.5.2009 and has nothing to do with the present occurrence which otherwise stands duly proved and established against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage contends that the sentence of 3 years for the offence under Section 326 IPC is unduly harsh and that the same is liable to be reduced in view of the fact that the petitioner is a first offender. Besides, Kunan Singh has also been released on probation. Learned State counsel has opposed the same and submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had inflicted a ‘datar’ blow on a lady and injury was found to be grievous in nature, he is not entitled for the reduction of his sentence. After giving my thoughtful consideration, it may be noticed that the incident had occurred in the year 2001 and the petitioner has faced the travails of prosecution and trial for all these years. As per the custody certificate which is filed in Court, the petitioner has undergone 3 months and 6 days of imprisonment till 19.8.2010. As on date, he has Crl. Rev. No.1810 of 2010 [6] undergone about 4 months of imprisonment. There is no other case pending against him. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner pays a sum of ` 10,000/- to the complainant and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year. Accordingly, with the modification in the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner and the order of payment of fine, the revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall deposit the fine in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala within a month from the receipt of copy of the order and the learned Magistrate shall transmit the said amount to the complainant. September 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE