BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10.11.1983 Bhagwant Singh and Rajinder Singh, revision-petitioners, armed with Gandasa and Sua respectively, came in front of the house of Jhanda Singh complainant at about 6 p.m. The complainant was challenged by them to come out of his house. The petitioners raised Lalkaras and Jhanda Singh came in the street. Bhagwant Singh petitioner gave a Gandasa blow from its blunt side and Jhanda Singh fell down. In the meantime, Shrimati Dalip Kaur, wife of Jhanda Singh came to his rescue. She gave a cover to him by laying herself on him. Bhagwant Singh caused another Gandasa blow from its sharp-side, striking at the left thumb of the complainant and the same was amputated. Rajinder Singh petitioner gave injuries with Sua on the person of Smt. Dalip Kaur. Bhagwant Singh also caused injuries to Smt. Dalip Kaur. Chhota Singh also came there and tried to rescue Jhanda Singh and Smt. Dalip Kaur. The petitioners run away with their respective weapons. The injured were carried by Bhajan Singh in a truck to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla. The motive for the occurrence was that there was some dispute between Smt. Dalip Kaur and Smt. Basant Kaur alias Basanto, mother of the petitioners. The Gram panchayat intervened and tried to get effected a compromise between the parties, but the complainant-party was not satisfied with the negotiations. Ruqqa sent by the Doctor attracted the attention of the Police and on coming to the hospital, statement Ex. PA of Jhanda Singh was recorded on 12.11.1983 at about 3.45 p.m. and case First Information Report No. 228 of that date was registered under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code in short) at Police Station Malerkotla. After investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted to the Illaqa Magistrate.

(2.) DURING trial, the prosecution examined PW1 Jhanda Singh, PW2 Smt. Dalip Kaur, PW3 Chhota Singh and PW4 Dr. K.C. Modi. On 29.1.1985 one PW was given up and the remaining witnesses were not present. Keeping the facts of the case in view, the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution, as on earlier dates it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted to the prosecution. Thereafter the statements of the petitioners were recorded and they examined DW1 Harnak Singh and DW2 Ujagar Singh in their defence. Their statements were that in front of the house of Harnak Singh, three was some dispute between Smt. Basanto mother of the petitioners and Smt. Dalip Kaur and there were some injuries caused to Smt. Basanto by Jhanda Singh. Jhanda Singh then declared that he would involve them in some cases. Bhagwant Singh was in service and Rajinder Singh was a student. This defence has not been believed by both the courts below. Relying on the statements of prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 and 3 (who are eye-witnesses), the trial Court convicted the petitioners under the aforesaid sections of the Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 326 of the Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. Both the petitioners were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 324 of the Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 323 of the Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred an appeal and the Sessions Court modified the sentences, reducing one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 to 9 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- qua Bhagwant Singh and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to suffer RI for 6 months. The sentence of Bhagwant Singh petitioner under Section 324 was maintained as RI for 6 months; under Section 323/34 of the Code it was also maintained. Rajinder Singh's sentence under Section 326/34 of the Code was reduced to RI for 8 months, but fine and imprisonment in default thereof was maintained. Rajinder Singh's sentence under Section 324/34 and under Section 323 of the Code was maintained. Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 300/- was directed to be paid as compensation to Jhanda Singh and Rs. 200/- to Smt. Dalip Kaur. The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentences by way of this criminal revision.

(3.) THE counsel for the State has urged that the prosecution version is fully supported by the statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 who are eye-witnesses. According to him, absence of the investigating officer from the witness box is of no consequence in this case because no incriminating recovery has taken place in this case and in the circumstances of the case the delay, if any, has been properly explained by the prosecution witnesses.