SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitioners, namely, Sukhbir Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh stand convicted and sentenced as under: 326 IPC , R.T. for nine months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further RI. for four months. 325/34 IPC RI. for six months. 323/34 IPC RI. for four months. Baiwinder Singh 326/34 IPC R.T. for nine months and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further RI. for three months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence by way of this revision.

(2.) The petitioners are alleged to have caused injuries to/Mulkh Raj and Sewa Singh P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively on 15th November, 1981. Dr. Jatinder Mohan Sharma P.W. 5 medically examined Mulkh Raj on 15th November, 1981, at 11.40 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person : -

(3.) Mr. Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners seriously. His only submission is that the solitary grievous injury caused with a sharp-edged weapon on the left middle finger of Mulkh Raj does not appear to have been caused by the petitioners. All the injuries suffered by both the injured prosecution witnesses except this injury are the result of a blunt weapon. This injury is on the middle finger of the left hand and no injury has been caused to the adjoining fingers. Mr. Harbans Siugh thus argues that it is highly improbable that this injury had been caused in the manner as alleged by the petitioners. It is further contended that had any of the petitioners been armed with a sharp-edged weapon some more injuries with a sharp-edged weapon would have been suffered by the injured prosecution witnesses. Although the police report is not strictly relevant and admissible evidence but the fact remains that Shri Jarnail Singh Inspector of Police who re-investigated the case under orders of the senior police officers presented a supplementary challan under section 325 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Keeping in view all these circumstances it is doubtful whether this injury was suffered by Mulkh Raj P.W. at the hands of the petitioners. Consequently I acquit Sukhbir Singh petitioner of the charge under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and his two competitioners of the charge under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside their sentence under this count However, their conviction on the other counts is maintained. The petitioners are not previous offenders. I think that it is a fit case where the benefit of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended to the petitioners Consequently I suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners under sections 325, 325/34, 323 or 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the case may be, and order that they be released on probation on their furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bind in the sum of five thousand rupees with one surety in the like amount each to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to serve the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. However, each one of them would pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation payable to the injured prosecution witnesses Out of the compensation, Rs. 3,000 would go to Mulkh Raj P.W. while the remaining Rs. 1,500 would go to Sewa Singh P.W. The fine already paid would be adjusted towards the compensation. If the compensation is not paid within two months, the petitioners would be called upon to serve the sentence. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed, Order accordingly.