Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot maintaining the conviction of the petitioner.

The petitioner herein is Jaswant Singh. He has a brother by the name of Kulwant Singh. Both were convicted and sentenced. Kulwant Singh did not file any appeal whereas Jaswant Singh did before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. On dismissal of his appeal, he has come to this Court. The main effort of his learned Counsel is to distinguish the case of Jaswant Singh from that of Kulwant Singh in the matter of sharing the common intention.

The prosecution case is that Charanjit Kaur, a sister of Jaswant Singh and Kulwant Singh accused, had got involved with one Amarjit Singh. Amarjit Singh procured a statement of Charanjit Kaur in Court on the strength of which he was keeping Charanjit Kaur in his house as his wife. Both the accused persons did not take this episode kindly. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th October, 1982, at about 10.00 p.m., both the accused trespassed into the house of Paramjit Singh. The immediate available inmates of the house then were Amarjit Singh, a brother of Amarjit Singh, Mithu Singh, a cousin of Amarjit Singh, and Mukhtiar Singh, the father of Amarjit Singh. They were lying on their costs. Amarjit Singh and Charanjit Kaur were asleep in the inner apartments. Paramjit Singh, Mithu Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were engaged in talk. Both the accused armed with Kirpans came and told the inmates that they had come to teach them a lesson for keeping their sister in the house. Thereafter, as goes the prosecution version, Jaswant Singh, petitioner, gave two simple Kirpan blows on the person of Paramjit Singh and one simple Kirpan blow on Mithu Singh. These injuries were in the region of arms of both the victims. Kulwant Singh gave two Kirpan blows on the person of Mithu Singh, one hitting him on the right side of the face. This injury was grievous whereas the other one was simple. So, in all, five injuries were given. On alarm raised, the accused left the spot with their respective weapons. It was a moonlit night and the prosecution witnesses allegedly had no difficulty in identifying the accused. This version of the prosecution became the subject of an FIR. The injured witnesses were attended to by Dr. S.P. Singh at Civil Hospital Muktsar and he prepared their medicolegal reports with the aforementioned results. It was on these allegations that the petitioners were sent up for trial.

When faced with the prosecution evidence, both the accused pleaded their denial. However, Kulwant Singh accused led evidence to the effect that he had an injury on his person and from the mouth of Bakhtaur Singh, Panch, had it cleared that it was given to him at the time when the Panch and Kulwant Singh had gone to the house of the complainant party asking for the return of the sister of the accused and it is there that the injury was given to him by the complainant party. Nothing was mentioned by the Panch about the injuries which were found on Paramjit Singh and Mithu Singh PWs. It has been left to suggestion that these were perhaps caused in the right of private defence. No foundation, however, was laid of such a defence either in the crossexamination of the witnesses or in the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite opportunity being given to the defence and having availed of it, the accusedpetitioners did not lead evidence to suggest that the injuries to Paramjit Singh and Mithu Singh PWs had occasioned on account of right of private defence. So it is difficult for the Court to come to a conjectural theory that perhaps these were caused in the right of private defence merely because Kulwant Singh accused claims to have received a blunt weapon injury on his head from the complainant side. So the occurrence as such stands proved and there is nothing to dislodge it.

The point now to be seen is whether Section 34, Indian Penal Code, should be made applicable in the instant case. As is evident, the accused had jointly raised voices to say that they had come to the complainant''s house to teach them a lesson for keeping their sister in his house. Yet only five injuries were given by the two accused. One injury alone on the person of Mithu Singh was grievous and that was attributed to Kulwant Singh accused. The remaining four injuries were simple in nature. Despite the anger of the accused against the complainant party, it could get exhibit only with the aforesaid small result through they were armed with deadly weapons like kirpans. Thus from this it is inferential that Jaswant Singh, petitioner, only shared the common intention with his coaccused to the extent of trespassing into the house of the complainants and to give simple injuries to them. On coming to such a conclusion, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326/34 IPC is set aside.

Jaswant Singh, petitioner, is stated to be a Beldar in the canal department and in the employment of the Government. Naturally, he was morally wounded because of his sister getting involved with Amarjit Singh and the face he possibly had to lose in the society. Keeping that in view, though his conviction under Section 452 IPC and under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC has to be maintained. I, order his release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act requiring him to execute a bond for one year in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with one surety in the like amount before the trial Magistrate within a period of two months from today binding himself to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Since he is released on probation, the conviction shall not affect his service career. Fine, if paid by the petitioner, was under orders of the trial Court to go to both the victims as compensation. Now this money, if paid, would not longer remain as fine but shall be treated as costs due to the prosecution which be paid to both the victims in equal shares.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.