STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST . Mukhtiar Kaur (PW-3) wife of deceased Gurdial Singh lodged FIR No. 113, dated 30.9.1985 (Ext. PD) with Police Station Saddar Bhatinda accusing all the respondents of having caused death of her husband on 29.9.1985 at about sun-set time in the area of village Kot Shamir. She is an injured eye-witness alongwith her father Amar Singh (PW-4) of the occurrence in question. After completion of investigation of the case by the Police and on presentation of the challan in accordance with law, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Bhatinda vide commitment order dated 21.12.1985 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda. In due course, the case was assigned to Shri K.S. Kauldhar, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who after conclusion of the trial proceedings in accordance with law, acquitted the accused of the charge under section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.

(2.) HOWEVER , all the accused were found guilty and convicted under section 325/34, IPC having caused grievous hurt (injury No. 5) to the deceased with Sotis. They were all also convicted for an offence under section 323/34, IPC having caused simple injuries, on the person of the deceased. Major Singh accused alone having caused a simple injury to Mukhtiar Kaur (PW), has been convicted under section 323, IPC, also. The accused were found guilty vide judgment dated 12.6.1987 and vide order of even date, the trial Court while considering the amount of sentence to be awarded to the convicts, extended benefit of probation under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Each of them was further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2, 000/- to the heirs of the deceased.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence ocular as well as of medical nature need not be discussed in detail except to the extent, it is relevantly required for the decision of the case only on the point as to whether what offence is to be made out from the proved facts of the prosecution. In other words, whether the trial Court is right in convicting the accused only for offences under section 325/323/34, IPC, as detailed above.