MAUJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mauja Singh and others have preferred this revision against the order dated 10.12.1991 passed by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which their appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala was dismissed. When this revision was admitted by S.S. Grewal, J., notice was issued only with respect to the nature of the offence and for consideration of sentences and grant of probation to be petitioners.

(2.) In a nut-shell, the prosecution case is that at about 6 p.m. on 25.12.1987, Rashpal Singh and Buta Singh started hurling abuses to Kashmira Singh, complainant, while he was sitting in his house. Meanwhile, Kashmira SinghTs father returned from the fields when he was slapped by Rashpal Singh. Hearing that alarm, Kashmira Singh emerged from his house into the street and tried to rescue his father. Mauja Singh, accused petitioner, then opened the attack and gave a Gandasi blow, hitting him on his right arm; Rashpal Singh dealt a Dang blow on his back side; Gurnam Singh gave a Dang blow on his back side; and Dilbagh Singh dealt a Dang blow on the right side of his back. Buta Singh gave a Dang blow on the right leg of Kashmira Singh. Kashmira Singh raised alarm which attracted his brotherTs wife. Smt. Mohinder Kaur to the spot, to rescue him. Sewa Singh then dealt a Sua blow on her right arm, while Buta Singh gave a Sua blow on her left shoulder. Thereafter, the assailants dragged away Kashmira Singh into Sewa Singhs house and bolted the door. Kashmira Singhs father and Smt. Mohinder Kaur raised alarm. On hearing this, Balkar Singh and his wife came there and rescued him from the clutches of the assailants.

(3.) Injury-Ion the person of Kashmira Singh has been attributed to Mauja Singh. It may be described as under: 1) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm on the posterior medial aspect of right forearm, 9 cm above wrist, slight bleeding was present. X-ray advised. Dr. S.S. Gill, Radiologist kept this injury under observation and after X-ray, declared it to be grievous. This statement of the doctor is being challenged on the basis that skiagram and the Xray report sent by him to the Police had not been produced. I am, however, of the view that the nonproduction of these documents which, according to Dr. Gill, were sent to the police, will not affect his testimony. He had made the statement about the nature of the injury on the basis of the record retained by him. As the statement of Dr. Gill, on this aspect of the case, was not challenged in cross-examination, his unchallenged statement will make out the injury to be grievous and conviction of Mauja Singh for offence u/s 326. I.P.C. is fully justified. Both Dilbagh Singh and Mauja Singh had participated in their attack on Kashmira Singh. This attack was opened in front of the house of Kashmira Singh and an effort was made to make him emerge out of his house by hurling abuses and when they were not successful his father was slapped he having arrived at the spot. In this situation, it can safely be accepted that both Mauja Singh and Dilbagh Singh shared common intention for causing grievous injuries to Kashmira Singh. Provisions of Section 34 I.P.C. will thus be attracted so far as Dilbagh Singh is concerned. The sentence awarded to both of them under this count can hardly be described to be harsh. The Courts below have, rather, erred on the side of leniency in awarding the sentence. All the sentences imposed are maintained.