LAWS(P&H)-1996-3-108

NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 21, 1996
NACHHATTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhatinda and as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, in appeal.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on 23.5.1986 at 7/8 P.M. when Jangir Singh, complainant, came back after doing labour work in the fields, Balbir Singh, his brother, and his two sons, namely, Nachhattar Singh and Harbans Singh, carrying 'Kasoli', 'Kasia' and 'Gandasa' respectively came before his house and started abusing him and asked him to come out of his house so that he (Balbir Singh) may take his share of land. Jangir Singh, complainant, followed by his wife, Gurdip Kaur and son, Jaswinder Singh came out of their house. Jangir Singh asked the accused persons not to call him bad names. On this, Nachhattar Singh gave a Kasia blow on the head of Jangir Singh from its sharp side; Balbir Singh gave a Kasoli blow on his left arm and then Nachhattar Singh again gave a Kasia blow from its reverse side on his head. When Jangir Singh on receiving injuries fell on the ground, Harbans Singh, other son of Balbir Singh, gave a Gandasa blow on his fore-head from its blunt side. The wife and son of Jangir Singh raised an alarm. Accused fled away with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Jangir Singh was rushed to hospital. On completion of investigation, accused were challaned under Sections 326/323/325/34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) IN the present revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the doctors who performed medico-legal examination and x- rayed the injuries and gave opinion have not been produced. He contended that the conviction cannot be maintained simply on the basis of ocular testimony of injured and eye-witnesses or the photographer who had taken Skiagrams. He further contended that if the report, Exh. P-4/A is excluded, the ocular testimony at the most would prove offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.