KAPUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAPUR Singh son of Sampuran Singh, Bhura Singh and Hazura Singh sons of Manna Singh, residents of village Jagatgarh Bander, the petitioners herein, have filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 30.7.1988 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and against the conviction of the petitioners by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.7.1987.

(2.) IT is worth mentioning that the present petitioners along with their two co-accused, namely, Lachhman Singh and Ruldu Singh sons of Gurbachan Singh were convicted by the trial Court but they stand acquitted by the learned Appellate Court as their involvement was held to be doubtful. Kapur Singh petitioner along with all accused was convicted by the trial Court under Section 148 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 326 IPC and Ruldu Singh, Hazura Singh, Bhura Singh and Lachhman Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC each. Ruldu Singh, Hazura Singh and Bhura Singh were sentenced RI for one year each under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, whereas Kapur Singh petitioner and Lachhman Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Lachhman Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 323 IPC whereas Kapur Singh petitioner; Hazura Singh, Ruldu Singh and Bhura Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and it was also ordered that in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/-, Kapur Singh petitioner herein was ordered to undergo further SI for three months, Ruldu Singh, Hazura Singh and Bhura Singh each were ordered to undergo SI for two months in default of payment of fine and Lachhman Singh was ordered to undergo SI for one month in default of payment of fine. The judgment of the learned trial court was confirmed upholding the conviction of the present petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of all the appellants recorded under Section 148 IPC and further modified the conviction as under :-

(3.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 3.1.1984 at about 7.30 A.M., the complainant along with his son Gulzar Singh was going to his field to pluck the cotton sticks and when they reached near the field of Jaggar Singh, Kapur Singh, the petitioner herein, appeared with a kirpan and challenged him as to where he would go that day though he had run away a day before yesterday. The complainant had stated that he had no dispute with him and he should be allowed to go. It is then the case of the prosecution that Kapur Singh petitioner called his co-accused who were hiding themselves in the cotton sticks, on which Hazura Singh and Bhura Singh petitioners along with Lachman Singh and Ruldu Singh (since acquitted) also reached there along with arms. It is then the case of the prosecution that Kapur Singh gave a kirpan blow on the left leg of Harmail Singh and he fell down. Hazura Singh petitioner also gave gandasa blow on the person of Harmail Singh. It is then the allegation that Lachman Singh also caused injuries to the complainant and then fled away from the spot. The injury attributed to Kapur Singh petitioner falls within the mischief of Section 326 IPC.