High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/2304/2022disposed of

Gurtej Singh @ Teja And Others v. State Of Punjab

2024-07-23Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi17 pages

#1#

!"#"$%&'& ()

*+"$,-. * )#.

......Petitioners.

Vs.

($* /.

......Respondent.

% 01 & +++ Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate or the applicants/Petitioners. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate for the Complainant. *** ++2& The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioneraccused against the judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot has been partly allowed and their sentences were reduced/modified. 2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case as per report under section 173 Cr.P.C are that on 25.10.2015, one telephonic call was received at Police Station Sadiq from HC Bohar Singh, MHC PS City Faridkot that three MLR's i.e. MLR bearing No.475/2015/IT pertaining to Beant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, MLR No.476/2015/IT pertaining to Hardeep Singh

#2# son of Beant Singh and MLR bearing No.477/2015/IT pertaining to Jagdeep Singh son of Shamsher Singh were received and an Investigating Officer be sent to investigate the matter. Thereafter, after the receiving MLR's from P.S City Faridkot, the Investigating Officer ASI Kuldeep Singh alongwith other police officials went to GGS Medical College, Faridkot for recording the statement and injured Beant Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he was an agriculturist. On 24.10.2015, he alongwith his son Hardeep Singh and his nephew Jagdeep Singh were going to their fields and at about 05.30 P.

M, ther when they reached near their fields, then Kewal Singh son of Natha Singh armed with gandassi, Teja Singh son of Natha Singh armed with tokki, Chhinda Singh armed with dang, Hoshiar Kaur wife of Natha Singh armed with stick/ sotti, and Sukha Singh son of Bakthaur Singh armed with alongwith 4/5 unknown persons alongwith dangs were present. Thereafter, Hoshiarpur Kaur raised an alarm to catch hold of them and not to let them go scot free. Then all accused persons attacked upon them Kewal Singh gave a blow of a upon his head and in order to save himself he raised his hand and the same hit upon his wrist, accused Teja Singh gave a blow upon his head and in order to save himself he raised his hand and the same hit upon his left wrist.

and on hearing the hue and cry Balwinder Singh and Jatinder Singh came there and accused persons alongwith their respective weapons the fled away from the spot. Thereafter, after arranging the vehicle Jaskaran Singh got admitted him to GGS Medical College, Faridkot. He further recorded that the motive behind the occurrence was that their water course i.e.

was flowing under the land of accused persons and they had

#3# damaged the same prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened, but the matter was not resolved. Due to the said motive, all accused caused injuries to him.

Thereafter, upon the statement of the complainant/injured, offence under sections 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code was found to be made out and ruqa was presented and sent to the police station for registration of an FIR on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the accused The persons. Thereafter, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. On 05.11.2015, offence under section 326 of IPC was added vide rapat No.22. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and weapons in question were also recovered from them. After completion of necessary formalities, challan was prepared and presented in the court, against the accused persons, as per the provision of section 173 of Cr.P.C. After going through the report under section 173 Cr.PC and the relevant documents submitted therewith finding a case, charge under section 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.

In order to substantiate the charges the prosecution examined ka following witnesses;

PW1 Dr. Chaitanya Tapasvi, Associate Professor, GGS Medical Hospital, Faridkot, stepped into the witness box and the deposed that he was appointed as Chairman of the Board for conducting the reexamination of injured Beant Singh vied office letter No.GA/2015/4036267 dated 29.12.2015 by Dr. Gurmeet Kaur Sethi, GGS the the Medical College Faridkot and he proved on record the list of the same as Ex.PW1/A, which

#4# bore his signatures. He deposed that on the 18.02.2016, they examined the injured Beant Singh and found the following identification marks:

He proved on record the identification marks as Ex.PW1/B. He also deposed that after identification marks, they found the following injuries:

$%&

"$%&'(' ' )

$%&

"(' '' )

# $%& "$%&'(' ' )

He also proved on record the bed head ticket of the injured as Ex.PW1/C, Xray examination as Ex.PW1/D, Xray report as Ex.PW1/E and final report as Ex.PW1/F.

PW2 Dr. Ishwer Tayal, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, who stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 24.10.2015, he conducted the Medicolegal examination of patient Beant Singh son of Gurcharan Singh vied MLR No.475/2015/IT. He proved on record MLR as Ex.P1, pictorial diagram as Ex.P2 and computer generated copy of same as Ex.P3. Не proved the injuries on the body of patient Beant Singh as follows:

#5#

" -

The witness also proved on record the Xray film as Ex.P4, X ray report bearing No.MLX/GD/100/01/2015 dated 28.10.2015 as Ex. P5 and the supplementary opinion as Ex.P6.

He further deposed that on the same day, he also conducted he medicolegal examination of patient Hardeep Singh son of Beant Singh the vide MLR No.476/2015/IT. He proved on record the MLR as Ex.P7, pictorial the diagram as Ex.P8 and computer generated copy of the same as Ex.P9. He proved the injuries on the body of patient Hardeep Singh as follows: %

% *

* &

(

)

The witness also proved on record the Xray film as Ex.P10, X ray report bearing No.MLX/GD/107/01/2015 dated 28.10.2015 as Ex.P11, sequential opinion as Ex.P12 and report as Ex.P13. He further deposed that on the same day, he also conducted the medicolegal examination of patient Jagdeep Singh son of Shamsher the Singh vide MLR No.477/2015/IT. He proved on record the MLR as Ex.P14, the pictorial diagram as Ex.P15 and computer generated copy of the same as Ex.P16. He proved the injuries on the body of patient Jagdeep Singh as follows:

#6# /

" -

The witness also proved on record the Xray film as Ex.P17 from Dr. Gagandeep Singh No.MLX/GD/102/01/15 dated 28.10.2015 as Ex.P18, sequential opinion as Ex.P19 and report as Ex.P20. PW3 Beant Singh, who is the complainant/injured of the present Hated case deposed about the facts of the prosecution case and stated that on 24.10.2015, he alongwith his son Hardeep Singh and his nephew Jagdeep Singh were going to their fields and at about 05.30 P.M, when they reached near their fields, then Kewal Singh son of Natha Singh armed with gandassi, Teja Singh son of Natha Singh armed with , Chhinda Singh armed with dang, Hoshiar Kaur wife of Natha Singh armed with stick/ , and Sukha Singh son of Bakthaur Singh armed with alongwith 4/5 unknown persons were present theme alongwith were present there.

He deposed that thereafter, Hoshiarpur Kaur raised an alarm to catch hold of them and not to let them go to Scot free. Then all the accused persons attacked upon them and Kewal Singh gave blow of upon his head and in order to save himself he raised his hand and the same hit upon his wrist. Accused Teja Singh gave blow upon his head and in order to save himself he raised his hand and the same hit upon his wrist of the left arm.

and on hearing the hue and cry Balwinder Singh and Jatinder Singh came there and the accused persons alongwith their respective weapons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, after arranging a vehicle Jaskaran Singh got him

#7# admitted to GGS Medical College, Faridkot. He deposed that the motive behind the occurrence was that their watercourse i.e. was flowing under the land of the accused persons and they damaged the same prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, a Panchayat was convened, but the matter was not resolved. Due to this motive, all the accused caused injuries to him. He proved on record his statement as Ex.PA.

PW4 Hardeep Singh, injured eye witness of the present duly supported and corroborated the version of complainant. PW5 Dr. Gagandeep Singh, Radiologist, Jr. Resident, GGS Medical, Faridkot, proved on record Xray film of injured Beant Singh as Ex.PW5/A, Xray report as Ex.P5, Xray film of Hardeep Singh as Ex.PW5/B, Xray report as Ex.P11, Xray film of injured Jagdeep Singh as Ex.PW5/C and Xray report as Ex.P18.

PW6 Jagdeep Singh, another injured and also eye witness of the present case, also corroborated and supported the prosecution version. PW7 Dr. Arpandeep Singh, GGS Medical College, Faridkot, stepped into the witness box and brought on record the original bed head ticket CR No.PFDGG201503066 of injured Beant Singh. He also deposed that the patient was admitted on 24.10.2015 and discharged on 03.10.2015 Tha and proved on record copy of the same as Ex.PW7/A. PW8 Jatinder Singh, being an eye witness of the present case also supported the version of the prosecution. PW9 Dr. Sumit Prinja, Assistant Professor, GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, proved on record photocopy of bed head ticket of patient Jagdeep Singh as Ex.PW9/A.

#8# PW10 ASI Kuldeep Singh, No.113/FDK, being an Investigating Officer of the present case deposed about the manner and method in which the investigation was conducted. He proved on record the documents i.e. applications as Ex.PA and Ex.PB, statement of complainant/injured Beant Singh as Ex.PA, police proceedings as Ex.PC, FIR as Ex.PD, police endorsement as Ex.PE, site plan as Ex.PF, arrest memo of accused Amarjit Singh, Sukhpreet Singh and Hoshiar Kaur as Ex.PG, memo to call counsel as Ex.PH, personal search of accused as Ex.PI to Ex.PK, respectively, dang as MO1 and the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PL, as MO2 and the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PM, wooden stick as MO3 and the same was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PN, rough site plan of as Ex.

PO and offence under section 326 of IPC was added vied rapat No.22 dated 05.11.2015 as Ex.PP. PW11 ASI Kuldeep Kumar, No.51/Moga, stepped into the witness box and deposed that on 06.06.2016, he arrested accused Kewal Singh and proved on record the arrest memo as Ex.PQ. He also proved the physical verification of accused Kewal Singh as Ex.PR, arrest memo of accused Gurtej Singh as Ex.PS, physical verification of accused Gurtej Singh as Ex.PT, memo to call counsel as Ex.PU, recovered from accused Kewal Singh as MO4 the possession vide memo Ex.PV, recovered from accused Gurtej Singh as MO5 and the possession memo Ex.PW, rough sketch plans of as Ex.PX and as Ex.PY.

PW Balwinder Singh was given up being won over by the accused on the basis of the application Mark A moved by the complainant and the prosecution evidence was closed on 18.03.2017.

#9# 5.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC, was recorded by putting, to them all the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the evidence stating the same to be incorrect and pleaded their false implication. They further pleaded that they were innocent and the complainant party had filed a false complaint against them. They also pleaded that it was a politically motivated case and the complainant party had caused injuries to them. 6.

In defence the accused examined DW1 Amarjit Singh, who deposed that on 24.10.2015, he alongwith his brother Gurtej Singh and Kewal Singh were seeding wheat crops and at about 06.00 P.M, Beant Singh armed with , Hardeep Singh armed with , Jagdeep Singh armed with sword ( ) alongwith 5/7 unknown persons entered into his fields and started abusing their family members. He deposed that when he came to know about this fact, he stopped them and thereafter, Hardeep Singh raised a to teach him lesson for not letting them flow. Thereafter, Beant Singh gave blow on his person and in order to save himself he raised his hand and the same hit on his right hand finger and he raised an alarm

1 and thereafter, his brothers who were working in the fields came there and rescued him from their clutches. The witness also deposed that on the next day, Sukhdev Singh after arranging a vehicle got him admitted in GGS Medical College, the the Faridkot and the police got recorded his statement to the same effect. He proved on record his complaint moved by him before the court as the Ex.D1/A and copy of order passed by the Deputy Collector as Ex.D1/B.

DW2 Dr. Ishwar Tayal, Assistant Professor, Department of

#10# Forensic Medicine, GGS Medical College, Faridkot, deposed that on the 25.10.2015, he conducted the medicolegal examination of patient Amarjit Singh son of Natha Singh vide MLR No.481/2015/IT and proved on record the same as Ex.DW2/A and pictorial diagram as Ex.DW2/B. The witness also proved on record the following injuries on the patient of Amarjit Singh:

He also proved on record the Xray report No.MLX/GD/109/1/2015 dated 26.10.2015 as Ex.DW2/C and subsequent opinion as Ex.DW2/D.

DW3 HC Lakhwinder Singh, No.943/FDK, brought the original record and proved on record photocopy of Rapat Roznamcha as Ex.DW3/E. 9.

Based on the aforementioned evidence led, the accused came to be convicted and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.2018 as under: ()

*+"$,- Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 IPC RI for 03 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days IPC r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 06 Months 148 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 07 Days

#11# 6+"$,- Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 03 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days 324 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 06 Months 148 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days 7 )*"

+"$,- Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 03 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days IPC r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days 323 IPC RI for 06 Months 148 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days #-"

)4 (). 6"84 () Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 03 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days IPC r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days 323 IPC RI for 06 Months 148 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days +(9-8)

+"$,-.+(9-" Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 r/w Section 149 IPC RI for 03 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days 324 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days 323 IPC RI for 06 Months 148 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.1000/ 7 Days All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 10.

They preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.RT11 Dated 30.04.2022/29.10.2018. The said appeal came to be partly allowed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide Judgment dated 17.08.2022. While accused Hoshiar Kaur @ Dalip Kaur was acquitted of the charges

#12# framed against her, the sentence of the other accused was reduced/modified as under: ()

*+"$,-. * Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI 326 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days Four Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 01 Year Rs.250/ each total Rs.1,000/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for Months 6+"$,- Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further undergo RI IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC RI for 01 Year Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 01 Year each Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Section 323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for Months _ _ +(9-8)

+"$,-.+(9-"

)+ !

"$ + $

"$ $ :

(6 "$ () - )($:

), IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC RI for 01 Year Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 01 Year each Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for Months _ _ 7 )*"

+"$,-.--"$:

Under Section Sentence Fine In default of fine to further

#13# undergo RI IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for 02 Years Rs.2000/ 15 Days Four Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC RI for 01 Year Rs.250/ each total Rs.1,000/ 7 Days 323 IPC RI for Months _ _ Fine was paid by the petitioners before the lower Appellate Court.

11.

The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present revision petition.

12.

The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments have been passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence on record. The medical evidence was totally contrary to the ocular account. The prosecution witnesses had made material improvements in their statements in the Court from those recorded during the course of investigation. The falsity of the prosecution case can also be judged from the fact that Hoshair Kaur @ Dalip Kaur was acquitted by the lower Appellate Court. The injuries suffered by the accused party had not been explained by the prosecution and had not been considered by the courts while passing the impugned judgments. Therefore, the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside. In the alternative it is prayed that as the occurrence was of the year 2015 and the petitioners had clean antecedents, their sentences be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13.

The Counsel for the State has placed on record the custody certificates of the petitioners dated 15/17.07.2024 as per which petitioners namely Gurtej Singh and Kewal Singh have undergone a custody period of

#14# 07 months and 23 days each whereas petitioners Amarjit Singh @ Shinda and Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukhi have undergone a custody period of 06 months and 14 days. He along with the counsel for the complainant on the other hand contend that the offences stood established beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence was in consonance with the ocular account. The Appellate Court had already granted the benefit of doubt to the accused while acquitting one of the 05 convicted accused. Further, the said Court had also ordered reduction of sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Therefore, at this stage no interference was called for by this court and the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed. 14.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 15.

A perusal of the record would reveal that the case of the prosecution stands established beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence is totally in consonance with the ocular account. The witnesses have clearly disclosed the manner in which the occurrence took place. The injured/complainant Beant Singh (PW3) and injured eye witness Hardeep Singh (PW4) and Jagdeep Singh (PW6) are consistent as to the circumstances leading to the occurrence in question. Another witness who happens to be an independent witness namely Jatinder Singh (PW8) had duly corroborated the prosecution version. Though there is some delay in the registration of the FIR, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case in view of the attending facts and circumstances. Minor discrepancies regarding blood stained clothes etc are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution version.

16.

In view of the above discussion, I find no grounds to interfere

#15# with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot which has been partly allowed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

17.

As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out here that during the pendency of revision petition, the matter was sent for mediation but no settlement could be arrived at. The occurrence pertains to the year 2015. A perusal of the custody certificates would reveal that the petitioners have clean antecedents with other case registered against them. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to reduce/modify their sentence as under: ()

*+"$,-. *

)+ !

"$ + $

"$ $- $!

: $ :

(6 "$ () - )($:

), 326 IPC RI for months 23 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.10,000/ from Rs.2,000/ RI for 02 Years Four Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 23 Years (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.1,000/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 23 Days 6+"$,-

)+ !

"$ + $

"$ $- $!

: $ :

(6 "$ () - )($:

), 326IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 23 Days (actual period of custody undergone by Rs.10,000/ from Rs.2000/ RI for 02 Years

#16# the petitioner) Two Heads under Section 324 IPC RI for months 23 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 23 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Section 323 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 23 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) _ _ +(9-8)

+"$,-.+(9-"

)+ !

"$ + $

"$ $- $!

: $ :

(6 "$ () - )($:

), IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 14 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.10,000/ from Rs.2000/ RI for 02 Years Two Heads under Section 324 IPC RI for months 14 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days Two Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 14 Days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.500/ 7 Days IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for Months 14 days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) _ _

#17# 7 )*"

+"$,-.--"$:

)+ !

"$ + $

"$ $- $!

: $ :

(6 "$ () - )($:

), IPC r/w Section 34 IPC RI for months 14 days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.10,000/ from Rs.2000/ RI for 02 Years Four Heads under Section 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC RI for months 14 days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) Rs.250/ each total Rs.1,000/ 7 Days 323 IPC RI for Months 14 days (actual period of custody undergone by the petitioner) _ _ All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the amount of Rs.32,000/- imposed as enhanced fine, an amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured persons in equal proportion as compensation.

13.

The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms. 14.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ++ (6;2 Vinay