Jaswinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—This revision is filed to challenge the acquittal of the respondents u/s 307 IPC with a delay of 297 days. Crl. Misc. No.10342 of 2011 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning this delay is also filed. The delay is explained on the ground that the certified copy of the judgment was misplaced and was not traceable and could be found only after deep search on 22.1.2010. This has been advanced as the cause of delay in making approach. To me, this will sound a bit hollow. Nevertheless I have considered the case on merits.

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in this case were prosecuted for offences under Sections 307/323/34 IPC. The story as projected by the prosecution is that the complainant-petitioner along with Jatinder Singh and Ranjit Singh was sitting on the road side near the flour mill of Surjit Singh. Accused-Gurpeet Singh armed with Kirch, Gurbinder Singh armed with Gatra, Rajwinder Singh armed with Kirch and one Crl. Revision No.452 of 2011(O&M) -2 -Happy empty handed, came there. Gurpeet Singh gave a Kirch blow to the petitioner on the right side of his chest. Gurbinder Singh gave a blow with Gatra on the back side of the head of petitioner. Happy had caught Jatinder Singh when Rajwinder Singh had given a Kirch blow on the front side of head of Jatinder Singh. They raised alarm and were saved by Ranjit Singh, S/o Bharpur Singh. The accused ran away from the spot.

The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused made a statement. As per the respondents, they had not only denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, but had pleaded that Jaswinder Singh, Jatinder Singh and Mohar Singh had forcibly entered into the house of their uncle Ujjagar Singh to take away the articles/equipments being used for the village GYM. It is alleged that Jaswinder Singh was armed with a knife, Mohar Singh was armed with a dang and Jatinder Singh was empty handed and they had caused injuries to Gurpreet Singh and Rajwinder Singh. These persons, accordingly, are facing trial under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. Jaswinder Singh and Jatinder Singh had suffered injuries with their own weapons while the respondents made an attempt to save themselves. The respondents have examined 5 witnesses in their defence.

On the basis of evidence and material placed on record, the Court has examined the respective cases as projected by the parties. The Court has noticed that the prosecution was able to show that the accused-respondents had caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh and Jatinder Singh as was alleged. Their evidence was found consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court had Crl. Revision No.452 of 2011(O&M) -3 -rejected the defence version as put up by the respondents on the ground that Ujjagar Singh or any other member of his family, had not come forward to depose in this regard.

The Court found that the articles of GYM were lying in the shops of Bahadur Singh and Hakam Singh and the contention raised by the defence that these articles were lying at common place, could not be accepted. However, while discussing the medical evidence led by the defence in respect of Gurpreet Singh and Rajwinder Singh, the Court has noticed that they did not report at Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, which is at short distance, whereas they went to Civil Hospital, Dhuri. Complainant Jaswinder Singh and Jatinder Singh were medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, just within half an hour from the place of occurrence, but the accused-respondents had got themselves examined at Civil Hospital, Dhuri, late in the evenint at about 8.20 PM. They were found to have suffered only minor injuries.

The Court, however, did not accept the version of the prosecution u/s 307 IPC as FIR initially was registered under Sections 324/323/34 IPC. As per the opinion given by the doctor, the injury suffered was only described as "dangerous", but the doctor had not affirmed that the injury was "dangerous to life". The appellate Court has rightly appreciated that the doctor did not want to give a specific opinion that the injury was "dangerous to life" and used this term with the aim to help the prosecution. In this case, no opinion of the Radiologist or Surgeon was obtained for finding the injury as "dangerous to life". The surgery performed in this case was also found to be a minor one. Doctor, who had conducted the Crl. Revision No.452 of 2011(O&M) -4 -surgery, did not give any opinion that the injury suffered by Jaswinder Singh was dangerous to life. The Court, accordingly, held the respondents not guilty of offence u/s 307 IPC, but found them guilty only for offences under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. The appellate Court has considered all these submissions made on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the acquittal of the respondents for an offence u/s 307 IPC. The view taken by the appellate Court is just and reasonable and is based on evidence. No case for either taking any different view is made out nor it is a case where the evidence has not been appropriately appreciated. No case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal u/s 307 IPC. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.