GOKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOKHA Singh and Narain Singh have filed the present revision and it has been directed against the judgment dated 27.1.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, who maintained the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 325, 323 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Gokha Singh petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and petitioner Narain Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine both the petitioners were directed to further undergo RI for two months. Further the petitioners were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine each one of them was directed to further undergo RI for one month. Petitioner Gokha Singh was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 months under Section 323/34 IPC, and petitioner Narain Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 months under Section 323 IPC.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the conviction under Section 325 IPC mainly on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence led on the record by the prosecution that the injuries suffered by Gurcharan Singh were grievous in nature and in these circumstances the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court committed patent illegality in convicting the petitioners under Section 325 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the doctor has given the opinion clinically about the fracture of Gurcharan Singh and the injury of the injured was not kept under observation nor any x- ray was done. The doctor committed a patent illegality by declaring the injury grievous in nature without even mentioning as to which of the bones has been affected. The counsel maintained that the doctor did not give any data before coming to the conclusion about the fracture. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon State of Punjab v. Manga Singh and another, 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 144 and Raj Singh @ Raju and another v. State of Punjab, 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 433. Reliance has also been placed upon Jassa Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR 406. Incidently this authority was earlier discussed by their Lordships in 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 144.

(3.) BOTH the judgments I have gone through, but are distinguishable on the face of it. Dr. Gurdarshan Singh was the person who medically examined Gurcharan Singh injured and he gave the findings as follows :-