LAWS(P&H)-2012-10-174

SADHU SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 04, 2012
SADHU SINGH AND ANOTHER Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the judgment dated 08.05.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhatinda and affirmed and modified by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 31.08.2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bahadur Singh is an agriculturist and he is having 7 kanals of agricultural land, which abuts of Bath Wali Road. His land is adjoining to the land of Sadhu Singh son of Gurtej Singh. On 31.10.1999 complainant was throwing earth on the common passage by lifting the same from his field and his son Jasvir Singh was irrigating their cotton crop at some distance from his. In the meantime, from the side of Village Phoola, Sadhu Singh armed with Kasauli and Gurtej Singh armed with Jaffa came to the spot on a bullock cart and halted their bullock cart on the common passage near the place where the complainant was throwing earth. Then Sadhu Singh restrained him from throwing earth on the common pahi and further asked him that neither they will take water from their side nor will give them common passage. At this, an altercation took place between the complainant and accused. In the meantime, Sadhu Singh inflicted injuries with his Kasauli on the head of the complainant and two injuries on his right elbow. On making noise, accused Gurtej Singh gave a blow with his Jaffa at the face of the complainant and also inflicted injuries on his nose, eyes and neck. His son came at the spot and tried to rescue the complainant, then Sadhu Singh accused gave another blow with his Kasauli at the left arm of the complainant. On hearing their cries, other people gathered at the spot and the accused fled away from the spot. On 08.11.2004 the accused were formally arrested and the weapons used in the offence were recovered and on 20.11.2004 the accused were again arrested and after completion of investigation, the challan was presented.

(3.) Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W7 and thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed.