Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab

the person of Bhura Singh and Raj Singh, First Information Report was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, they were challaned.

6. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 148, 325, 325/149, 323, and 323/149 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Bhura Singh, complainant-cum-injured, (PW-1), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, Raj Singh, injured,(PW-2), Surjit Kaur, an eye witness, (PW-3), Balihar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-4), Investigating Officer, Dr. Suresh Kumar, (PW-5), Dr. Harinder Singh, (PW-6), Dr. Karam Singh, Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 5 (PW-7), Deepa Dayal, (PW-8), Nirmal Singh,C-1, (PW-9), and Parmod Kumar, Ahlmad ,(PW-10). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.

8. 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.

9. The accused examined Darshan Singh, DW-1, Jaila Singh, DW-2, Mohinder Singh, DW-3, Najar Singh, Head Constable, DW-4, Naresh Kumar, DW-5, Shashi Mohan, Advocate, DW-6, and Karnail Singh, DW-7 in their defence. Some documents were also tendered into evidence. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.

10. 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.

11. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellants, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, vide judgment dated

21.01.2010.

12. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition has been filed by Surjit Singh, revision-petitioner. Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 6 13 I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the evidence and documents, on record, carefully.

14. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner has only advanced the argument to the effect that the Courts below, did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they did not record any special reasons, for not releasing the accused/convicts on probation of good conduct, though they were not the previous convicts. He also placed reliance on Karaj Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal), 367 in support of his contention. No doubt the other grounds were taken, in the memorandum of revision-petition, but those were not pressed by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner.

15. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contention, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can not re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, produced by the prosecution, until and unless it comes to the conclusion, that there was mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence, or material piece of evidence, was ignored by the Courts below, while deciding the case. On due scrutiny of the Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 7 evidence of Bhura Singh, complainant-cum-injured, (PW-1), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, Raj Singh, injured,(PW-2), and Surjit Kaur, an eye witness, (PW-3), who corroborated the statements of Bhura Singh, Balihar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, (PW-4), Investigating Officer, Dr. Suresh Kumar, (PW-5), Dr. Harinder Singh, (PW-6), and Dr. Karam Singh, (PW-7) the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing and reliable and sufficient, to bring home the guilt to the accused. The Courts below were also right, in holding, that the motive was with the accused to cause injuries, on the person of the complainant-cum-injured, and the injured, as they wanted to take forcible possession of the passage (pahi), to which the complainant objected to. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, awarded by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld.

16. Now coming to the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, that no special reasons were recorded by the Courts below for declining the concession of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., though he was not the previous convict. It may be stated here, that the Courts below came to the conclusion, that keeping in view the nature of offences, committed by the accused-petitioner, he was not Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 8 entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C.. It may be stated here, that as many as 16 injuries were caused, on the person of Bhura Singh, injured, out of which three injuries were on his chest i.e. vital part of the body. As many as 5 injuries were caused on the person of Raj Singh son of Bhura Singh. Injury No.1 was on the occipital prominence area of scalp of Raj Singh. Injury nos. 1,3,5 to 7 and 9 to 14 on the person of Bhura Singh, injured, were subjected to x-ray examination and the remaining were found to be simple, in nature. Injury nos. 1,2 and 5 on the person of Raj Singh, were subjected to x-ray examination. There was fracture of occipital bone and right parietal bone of Raj Singh. Keeping in view the heinous nature of the offences, committed by the accused, the Courts below were right in declining the concession of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise, in view of the enforcement of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which is a special enactment, the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. shall not be applicable. It was held in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1677 that the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, can be resorted to ony, when the Court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the “nature of offence” and forms its opinion, that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object, that the Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 9 offender should be released, on probation of good conduct. It was held in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 249 that the provision of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should not be mistaken, as undue leniency, nor should it be applied leniently in undeserving cases, where the offender in his early twenties, committed a reprehensible offence. Since, after taking into consideration the heinous nature of the offences, committed by the accused- petitioner, the Courts below came to the conclusion that no ground was made out for the grant of concession of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, they did not grant the same. It, therefore, could not be said that no special reasons were recorded by the Courts below, in declining the concession of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

17. In Karaj Singh's case (supra), relied upon , by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, the most important feature was that the complainant caused delay, in lodging the first information report, merely for the reason that if the offender repented and apologized, he would not lodge any complaint against him. It was held that this circumstance, in itself went to show that the complainant was ready to enter into compromise with the accused at the initial stage. Not only this even the injuries caused on the person of the complainant, in Crl. Revision No. 396 of 2010 10 that case, were on non-vital parts of the body. It was under these circumstances that the petitioners in that case, were held entitled to the grant of concession of the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. The facts of the aforesaid case, being clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

18. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.

19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. February 16, 2010 dinesh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE