MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.10.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar whereby Tara Singh (since deceased) was convicted under Section 326 IPC and Satnam Singh, Mohan Singh, Kishan Singh (since deceased), Bagga Singh, Santokh Singh, Jagga Singh, Amrik Singh and Gurnam Singh were convicted under Section 326 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. In addition Gurnam Singh was also convicted under Section 324 IPC, whereas the remaining petitioners were convicted under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Similarly, Amrik Singh and Jagga Singh-petitioners were further convicted under Section 325 IPC whereas remaining accused-petitioners were found guilty under Section 323 with the aid of Section 149 IPC. All of them were further held guilty under Section 148 IPC and were accordingly sentenced. The petitioners have also impugned the judgment dated 10.4.1991 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby their appeal was partly allowed to the extent that their conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside and while Tara Singh (since deceased) was convicted under Section 325 IPC, his co- accused were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. As a consequence of the aforementioned modification, Tara Singh (since deceased) was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. Likewise, the other petitioners were also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 325 IPC in addition to other lesser sentences awarded for the offences under Sections 323, 149 IPC etc. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 7th May, 1985 at about 8.00 p.m. injured- complainant (Karnail Singh) was present in his house along with his brother Jarnail Singh and other family members. The house of Tara Singh-petitioner (since deceased) adjoins their house. The roof top was lit with the electric light from the street pole when Tara Singh along with his co-accused Santokh Singh armed with datar came to the roof top of the complainant's house and started abusing him. Thereafter, Tara Singh is alleged to have given a lalkara to bring forward Narender Singh so that he could be taught a lesson for committing the murder of Lakhwinder Kaur, daughter-in-law of Tara Singh. Jarnail Singh, brother of the complainant, went to the roof top of his house and told Tara Singh not to abuse them but Tara Singh again shouted and raised lalkara that no one should be allowed to remain unharmed. Meanwhile, the other accused also came to the roof top and they were armed with deadly weapons like kirpan, gandasi, dang and datar except that Kuldip Singh was empty handed. Thereafter, Kuldip Singh is alleged to have held Jarnail Singh in his grip and Mohan Singh attacked Jarnail Singh by giving sword blows including three on the head; Kishan Singh gave four gandasi blows to him out of which three landed on his hand and fourth on the left side of the chest; Tara Singh inflicted two datar blows whereas other accused caused injuries to Jarnail Singh with their respective weapons. Narender Singh-nephew of the complainant and his brother Pritam Singh also reached the roof top but before they could raise an alarm, Gurnam Singh-petitioner inflicted two datar blows to the complainant on his right eye and forehead and Amrik Singh also gave a dang blow hitting him on the finger of his left hand. Thereafter, the accused escaped with their respective weapons. The injured were brought to Primary Health Centre at Baba Bakala by Narender Singh and Pritam Singh where the complainant and his brother were medico-legally examined. The occurrence is alleged to have been witnessed by Pritam Singh and Narender Singh. It was stated by the complainant that the motive of the petitioners in attacking the complainant party was that Narender Singh was being suspected to be involved in the murder of Lakhwinder Kaur, daughter-in-law of Tara Singh.

(3.) ON an appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court held that the injuries on the person of Tara Singh and Santokh Singh-petitioners were simple in nature and possibility of their being self-suffered could not be ruled out. It also observed that if at all these injuries were caused to them by Jarnail Singh, it was in exercise of his right to private defence. Relying upon the prosecution evidence, especially the statement of the injured Karnail Singh, the learned trial Court held the petitioners guilty and accordingly sentenced them, a brief reference to which has already been made. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who though accepted the findings returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate in relation to the occurrence and held the petitioners guilty of causing injuries to Karnail Singh and his brother Jarnail Singh, however, having regard to the nature of injuries, which according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, were not grievous in nature, he converted the conviction of Tara Singh-petitioner (since deceased) from Section 326 to Section 325 whereas rest of the petitioners were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC.