JAGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this revision petition are that on 27th of June 1991 Ran Singh and Gurmukh Singh residents of Village Niamatpur were converting a kacha wall of their house into a pucca one, when Jagir Singh and Nazir singh petitioner armed with gandasa, Jasbir Singh and Aucha Singh armed with lathis and Parmeswari wife of Norata Singh come there and started raising lalkaras that they will finish Gurmukh Singh and Ran Singh before the wall was demolished. In the meantime Pujari Bai widow of Ishar Dass, Ishar Kaur widow of Munsha Harijan and Kakam son of Jhanda all residents of village Niamatpur also arrived at the spot. Nazir Singh wielded his gandasa towards the head of Gurmukh Singh and Gurmukh Singh received an injury on his left palm while warding off the blow. Jasbir Singh and Jagir Singh caused injuries to Gurmukh Singh with their respective weapons, then Ran Singh stepped forward to save Gurmukh Singh, he too was hit by Sunder Singh on his head. Sucha Singh gave a lathi blow to Pujari Bai on her chest. On injury was received by Ishar Kaur while she was trying to intervene. Parmeshwari Kept pelting brick bats at Ran Singh and others. After the incident, Jagir Singh and his companions ran away saying that they will finish the other party on some other day. THE motive for the occurrence was that Challan Singh and others had instituted a suit for injection against Jagir Singh etc. with regard to the sites situated on the south on the wall in which temporary injunction was granted in favour of Ran Singh and others. Ran Singh and Gurmukh Singh were making a pucca wall on the site were their kacha was existed. THE matter was reported to the police by Ran Singh and on the basis of his statement, case was registered against Jagir Singh and others. Jagir Singh and six other accused were tried for offences under Sections 324/326/506/148 and 149 I.P.C. by Shri H.P. Handa, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. THEy were held guilty and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different terms under different counts and they went also fine. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 6th of January, 1986, recording their conviction the accused preferred an appeal, which was partly accepted. Jasbir Singh and Parmeshwari were acquitted of the charges leveled against them while conviction and sentence awarded to the other petitioners was maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, as per judgment dated 3rd of October, 1986. THE present revision has been filed by Jagir Singh and four other accused against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby their appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners did not address any argument assailing the conviction of the petitioners and he simply contended that it is a fit case where the petitioners should not be sent to Jail at the sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone. It was urged that the occurrence in this case took place in the year 1981 and a period of more than 12 years has elapsed. Only one grievous injury was caused to Gurmukh Singh on his leg, which was attributed to Jagir Singh. THE maximum sentence awarded to Jagir Singh under Section 326 I.P.C., was for one year. THE other petitioners were held guilty for their vicarious liability for this offence. THE rest of the injuries found on the person of Pujari Bai, Ran Singh and Ishar Kaur were simple in nature. Three of the persons on the side of the petitioners also sustained injuries in the same occurrence, which were not explained. THE learned counsel referred to the statement of P.K, Bansal P.W.5, who admitted in his cross-examination that Chanan Singh received an incised wound on the back portion of his scalp and he also complained of pain in the left shoulder. Parmeshwari suffered two injuries, one of which was found to be grievous and Jagir Singh petitioner sustained four injuries. One injury which was on his chest was grievous as his 10th rib was seen fracture on X-ray examination. It was thus contended that when the petitioners had also sustained injuries in the same occurrence and they had faced this protected trial also, it with be just and fair that they are not sent to lock up again to serve the remaining period of sentence. I find that this submission of the learned counsel is well merited. THE occurrence in this case took place about 12years back and the petitioners suffered harassment and mental agony by facing this litigation for the last many years. I therefore, partly accept this revision petition and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners reduce their sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. THE sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. Revision allowed partly.