Jai Singh vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J. (Oral)

Jai Singh, son of Ratia, along with his father Ratia, was prosecuted for causing injures to Baru Ram, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, who acquitted Ratia but convicted Jai Singh under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction, Jai Singh has filed this appeal.

The prosecution case briefly is that on 16th November, 1984, Baru Ram, PW 4, was going to Gorandeh (an open space in the village where cattle stand) to take his buffaloes; that all of a sudden Jai Singh appellant came from behind wielding a Gandasi blow on him, but he warded it off with his hands and caught hold of the Gandasi; that they thereafter grappled with each other; that in the meanwhile, Rati Ram coaccused of the appellant, also came there armed with a Jaili that Jai Singh appellant snatched the Jaili from his father and gave a Jaili blow on his right thigh; and that on the receipt of the injury, he fell on the ground and raised alarm which attracted Udmi Ram to the spot who rescued the injured from the accused. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the accused appellant had a grudge against the injured for his role in the separation of the eldest son of Rati Ram, namely Mahavir, from the family and on that score, the accused had a motive to cause the injury.

The prosecution had examined seven P Ws. in support of its case. Baru Ram, PW 4 and Udmi Ram, PW 5, are the witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. N.C. Mureja, PW 3, medicolegally examined Baru Ram. The other PWs are the police officials.

After the close of the prosecution case, the accused, in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded their false implication.

I have gone through the prosecution evidence and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first information report in this case was lodged after three days and so, no reliance should be placed on the story propounded therein. No doubt, the occurrence took place on 16th November, 1984 at 11 A.M. and statement Exhibit PC of Baru Ram was recorded three days after the occurrence, Baru Ram has given his explanation for the delay. He has stated that he was removed to the hospital on November 16, 1984 and was medico legally examined on that very day but the doctor did not send ruqa to the police till 19.11.1984. Baru Ram PW further states that he did not report the matter to the police because the accused were related to him and he wanted to live peacefully and avoid conflict with the accused. In view of the very close relationship of the accused and the injured the delay in lodging of the first information report is understandable. In case of close relations there is always some hesitation in reporting the matter to the police as in the event of the matter to the police as in the event of the matter going to the police, the relationship becomes more bitter. There is always an effort to avoid that the conflict may not widen further. So, in this view of the matter. I do not think that the delay in the lodging of the first information report is material.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as there was no previous enmity and the parties were close relations, the learned trial Court was not justified in denying the benefit of probation to the appellant. I find force in the argument. It is a case where looking to the facts, Jai Singh appellant, should have been given the benefit of probation. I do not find any justification for denying the benefit of probation to him. I direct that he be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Jind, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The bond shall be furnished under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He will pay Rs. 1000/ as compensation to Baru Ram. Fine, if already, paid shall be adjusted towards the compensation.

With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.