SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 3.12.91 at about 8 AM, Mal Singh after taking milk from his house was going to the house of Pal Singh son of Bawa Singh which was the centre for collection of milk for delivering milk there. When he reached near the manure pits, Jagga Singh alias Jaspal Singh son of Sadhu Singh armed with sabal resident of village Samaspur, Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla son of Major Singh resident of Kaulgarh were standing there. Jagga Singh pushed him and he fell down towards the manure pit. Then Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla caught hold of him and felled him down. In the meantime, Sadhu Singh armed with Sabal, Pritpal Singh armed with dang came there and started abusing him. Sadhu Singh gave 2-3 Sabal blows (while using sabal from sharp side) to Mal Singh which fell on his left leg. Jagga Singh @ Jaspal Singh gave 2-3 blows to Mal Singh which fell on his right leg. Pritpal Singh gave dang blow which fell on the left arm of Mal Singh. All the accused continued abusing and threatening Mal Singh that they would eliminate him. Mal Singh raised raula "Maar ditta - marr ditta". His raula attracted his younger brother Malkiat Singh and Darshan Singh to the spot. They saved him. Malkiat Singh got him admitted in the hospital. Cause of the grudge was that there was 4 acres of common land belonging to the people of the village. A civil dispute was going on between the accused and Mal Singh with regard to that land. Court had decided that dispute in favour of Mal Singh. Possession of the said land was taken over by the complainant party and they had constituted a committee for giving the land on lease over which the accused felt annoyed and they caused injuries to the complainant. Matter was reported to the police on the basis of which case FIR No. 85 was registered at PS Amloh under section 325/323/34 Indian Penal Code on 5.12.91. After investigation, Sadhu Singh, Pritpal Singh, Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla and Jagga Singh were challaned. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib found the charge under section 325 Indian Penal Code proved against Sadhu Singh. He found the charge proved against Sadhu Singh under Section 323/34 IPC. He accordingly convicted him thereunder. He sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month under Section 325 IPC. He sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months under section 323/34 IPC. He found the charge proved against Pritpal Singh under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months thereunder. He sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month under section 325/34 IPC. He ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Jagga Singh and Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

(2.) AGGRIEVED from this order dated 25.4.95 convicting and sentencing them passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, Sadhu Singh and Pritpal Singh went in appeal to the court of Session. Finding no merit in the appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissed their appeal vide order dated 2.9.98. Sadhu Singh and Pritpal Singh having felt that they have been unjustly dealt with by the two courts below, have come up in revision to this Court against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 2.9.98 maintaining their conviction and sentence passed upon them by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the same evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted Jagga Singh and Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla meaning thereby that qua them he did not believe the evidence of Mal Singh, Darshan Singh, Manjit Singh etc. PWs. On that evidence which the learned Magistrate did not believe qua Jagga Singh and Chhinderjit Singh @ Yamla, Sadhu Singh and Pritpal Singh could not have been convicted. Suffice it to say, learned Magistrate gave them only the benefit of doubt. He did not feel that PWs were liars. He only believed that Jagga Singh and Chhinderjit Singh may not possibly have been present at the spot. It was the duty of the court not to have acted on the ipse-dixit of eye witnesses but to weigh their testimony and scrutinize it. On scrutinizing/sifting of their evidence, the Magistrate thought that Jagga Singh and Chhinderjit Singh may not have been present at the spot and participated in the occurrence. Doctor found as many as 8 injuries on the person of Mal Singh on his medical examination. He found injuries 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as simple. He found injuries 2 and 4 as grievous after going through the report of the radiologist. Ocular account given by Darshan Singh and Mal Singh accords fully with the medical account given by Dr. Swaran Singh PW. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Magistrate. Similarly, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the judgment of the learned Magistrate. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the reappraisal of evidence made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the points raised by the petitioner were dealt with quite properly and justly by the learned courts below. Conviction of Sadhu Singh and Pritpal Singh recorded by the two courts below is quite in order and therefore revision was dismissed by me so far as conviction is concerned vide order dated September 14, 1998.