JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default R.I. for three months under section 326 I.P.C. and to R.I. for three months under sections 323/34 I.P .C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti, vide his order dated 2.8.1982. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Karam Singh co -accused of the petitioner who was also convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate was however, acquitted by the lower Appellate Court. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 326 I.P.C. were maintained while his conviction and sentence under sections 323/34 I.P.C. were set aside. The petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) THE common case of the parties is that Jagtar Singh petitioner owed some money to Karam Singh injured PW. According to the prosecution on 13.5.1981 at about 8.10 P.M. when Karam Singh demanded money, Jagtar Singh petitioner and his co -accused, namely Karam Singh (since acquitted) inflicted one injury each with Kirpan and Dang respectively to Karam Singh injured PW. Dr. Hakam Singh PW 1 who medically examined Karam Singh injured PW on 14.5.1981 found one sharp edged injury to be grievous, one. The version of the defence is that in fact Karam Singh PW along with two other persons came to demand the money from Jagtar Singh petitioner and on his refusal he caused injuries to Jagtar Singh petitioner. Jagtar Singh petitioner is alleged to have caused the injuries to Karam Singh injured PW in self -defence.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence consists of Bhan Singh PW 2 father of Jagtar Singh petitioner and Karam Singh injured PW. No explanation whatsoever has been offered for the injuries suffered by the petitioner. In all probability, the time taken in lodging the first information report has been utilised to concoct the case and make out a false story According to Dr. M.L. Ashwani DW 1, injuries on the person of Jagtar Singh petitioner are al most of the same duration as that of Karam Singh injured PW. In the circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner having caused the injuries in self -defence cannot be ruled out Consequently, I give benefit of doubt to the petitioner, acquit him of the cll1rge and set aside his conviction and sentence. Fine, if paid, would be refunded to him. Revision allowed.