AT CHANDIGARH v. State of Punjab

Present:- Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioners. *****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur vide order dated

26.04.2008 convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine as under :- Name of accused Offence Sentence Sr. No. Lakhwinder Singh U/s 326 IPC One year Fine in default Weapon Seat Rs.500/- 15 Gandasi Right 1 2 3 Balwinder Singh Vir Singh U/s 326/34 IPC U/s 326/34 IPC One year One year Rs.500/- 15 -do- Rs.500/- 15 -do- Balwinder Singh U/s 326 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 Club left Lakhwinder Singh U/s 326/34 One year Vir Singh IPC U/s 326/34 IPC One year Vir Singh U/s 325 IPC One year Balwinder Singh U/s 325/34 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 -do- Rs.500/- 15 -do- Rs.500/- 15 -do- Rs.500/- 15 -do- Crl. Rev. No.3115 of 2010 2 Name of accused Offence Sentence Sr. No. Lakhwinder Singh U/s 325/34 One year IPC Fine in default Weapon Seat Rs.500/- 15 -do- Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 16.11.2010, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the impugned judgment and order convicting the petitioners, submitted that the courts below committed error while holding the petitioners as aggressors without any evidence and only on the ground that the other side had received more injuries than the side of the petitioners. Secondly, it was wrongly held that the place of occurrence belongs to the complainant side and tried to show from the site plan that the said plan was near the house of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners is heard. The incident is of 18.08.2002. The matter was compromised. However, Amarjit Singh suffered a statement on 30.08.2002, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered. As per the statement, Vir Singh was doing earth filling in the back of his house by passing his tractor through the land of complainants on 18.08.2002 at about 1.00 p.m. Land dispute was already in existence between the parties, therefore, passing of tractor through the land of complainants was objected to but Vir Singh raised dispute and asked his son Sonu to call his brothers and brother-in-law. Soon relatives of Vir Singh came there and they attacked Amarjit Singh with their respective weapons. Vir Singh gave club blow on the left arm. Lakhwinder Singh gave gandasi blow on the right wrist. Balwinder Singh gave club blow on the left hand. On hearing the cries, Paramjit Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh and Rattan Singh father of Amarjit Singh came there. Amarjit Singh was thrown down on the ground and Paramjit Kaur tried to shield Crl. Rev. No.3115 of 2010 3 him when Lakhwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sonu continued giving blows with the help of clubs and gandasi, thereby left hand finger and head of Paramjit Kaur was injured. Vir Singh ran over the tractor from the left foot of Rattan Singh and Surinder Singh gave gandasi blow on his left and right shoulders. Cross version of the accused persons was also recorded. Lakhwinder Singh and Vir Singh have also received injuries. As per the evidence on record, there is not an iota of doubt expressed about the occurrence. The only thing that required to be determined is as to which side was aggressor. There were as many as seven injuries on the body of Amarjit Singh. There are also sharp and grievous injuries on the right hand and left arm of Amarjit Singh, as well as, on his right hand index finger. Paramjit Kaur also suffered injries on the left hand and simple injury on the head while trying to rescue Amarjit Singh. Rattan Singh, father of Amarjit Singh also suffered injuries. The injuries are, in no way, stated to be self suffered, whereas, the injuries on the body of Vir Singh, belonging to the present petitioners, are on non-vital parts. In fact, there was no corresponding cut on the clothes regarding sharp and grievous injury on the right leg of Lakwinder Singh which is stated to be injury under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. The grievous injury without tearing of clothes does not seem to be possible. Moreover, it is not explained how the petitioners' side went to far of place for medical examination instead of Kahnuwan which falls within the jurisdiction of Batala. Why did they not get the injured examined within the jurisdiction of Kahnuwan, which is a closer to place, has not been explained. This has rendered the medical examination of Vir Singh even more doubtful as the doctor admitted that medico legal report, number and date is blank in the documents proved by him. Even the time of intimation sent to the police station has not been mentioned. Date of discharge of injured persons is also not mentioned. All these factors have rightly led to the conclusion that Crl. Rev. No.3115 of 2010 4 the present petitioners were aggressors. Even otherwise, the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the place of occurrence does not belong to the other side and hence, they are not aggressors, has no merit as it is specifically noted in para 11 of the judgment of the trial Court, which reads as under :- “ 11. It is not controverted that land dispute was already pending between the parties and on 18.08.2003 dispute arose when Vir Singh was doing earth filling with tractor and was objected. Medico Legal reports of injured persons of both the parties are on record along with specific attribution in statements suffered during evidence.” Thus, the question of ownership of the land was not required to be decided in the present case. The issue that there was a land dispute, is admitted. Therefore, the motive behind the violence is apparent. The incident is admitted. No other ground has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

23.11.2010 gurpreet (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE