Tarun Kumar and Harbans Singh and Another vs State

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—By this common judgment, Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2002, preferred by Tarun Kumar son of Doomu Ram, Criminal Revision No. 740 of 2002, instituted by Harbans Singh son of Jeet Singh and Harpal Singh son of late Hardip Singh, shall be decided together.

All the three petitioners were named as accused in case FIR No. 180 dated 3.12.1996, registered at Police Station East, Chandigarh, under Sections 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

They were tried by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and vide its judgment dated 4.4.2000, it held petitioner Tarun Kumar guilty for the offence u/s 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Mohan Lal, whereas his co-accused Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh were convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, accused Tarun Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence u/s 325 IPC. His co-accused Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1� year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for the offence u/s 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, the petitioners preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 7.1.2002, upheld their conviction, however, reduced the sentence of petitioner Tarun Kumar from two years rigorous imprisonment to that of one year, whereas the sentence of his co-accused namely Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh was reduced from rigorous imprisonment of 1� year to that of nine months. The sentence of fine was maintained, however, in default whereof, all the petitioners were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each.

In the present case, the statement of Ramesh Lal was recorded in Daily Diary Register vide entry No. 37 dated 2.12.1996, wherein he stated that he was doing the work of repair of dents of vehicles at Malwa Motors, Sector 28, Chandigarh. On 2.12.1996 at about 11.00 A.M. he along with his brother Mohan Lal was working at his shop. At that time, Harbans Singh and Tarun Kumar came there and started hurling abuses to the complainant and his brother Mohan Lal. Harbans Singh caught hold of the neck of the complainant and started giving slaps. At that time, Tarun Kumar, armed with iron rod, gave a blow of the same on the leg of his brother. He fell down. Harpal Singh caught hold of Ramesh Lal from his hair. The complainant raised a noise which attracted Mohinder Pal, who rescued them from the accused. On 3.12.1996, after the receipt of the report of the Radiologist, the injury suffered by Mohan Lal was declared as grievous. After having found that the offence u/s 325 IPC was made out, FIR Ex.PW.7/B was registered on the basis of DDR Ex.PW.7/A.

The above said FIR was investigated and the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 2.7.1997.

The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, had charged all the accused for the offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC, for causing hurt with blunt weapon to Ramesh Lal and Mohan Lal. The trial Court had substantively charged accused Tarun Kumar for the offence u/s 325 IPC, whereas his co-accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

Injured/eye witness Mohan Lal appeared as PW.1. He specifically stated that Tarun Kumar was armed with an iron rod and caused injury in his leg.

PW.2 Mohinder Pal had attributed the said injury to accused Harpal Singh.

PW.3 Dr. P.D. Jain, Radiologist, found fracture of upper end of left tibia.

PW.6 Dr. R.M. Singh had medicolegally examined Mohan Lal and found the following injury:

Swelling over left knee of the size of 7 x 6 cm, swelling was fluctuating, movements at joint were restricted and painful. X-ray was advised and after receiving X-ray report No. X-31847 dated 2.12.1996, the injury was declared grievous in nature as fracture upper end left tibia seen in X-ray of left knee.

Yashpal, Moharrir Head Constable, who appeared as PW.4 and Balraj Singh, Constable, as PW.5, were the formal witnesses.

PW.7 Malkiat Singh, Sub Inspector, was the Investigating Officer.

Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence.

The statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded their false implication.

In the present case, the injury, as reproduced above, suffered by PW.1 Mohan Lal was declared as grievous, after the receipt of the report of the Radiologist. As per the injured PW.1 Mohan Lal, Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh were unarmed and on their arrival at the spot, they have been abusing the complainant. Ramesh Lal, complainant, was not examined by the prosecution. He was the best witness to disclose as to how the occurrence had ensued. He could have been examined regarding the contents of the FIR. Admittedly, petitioners Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh were empty handed and they had not caused any injury. Petitioner Harbans Singh had caught hold of complainant Ramesh Lal from his hair and gave him slaps, whereas petitioner Harpal Singh had caught hold of PW.1 Mohan Lal from his neck. The trial Court had recorded conviction for the solitary injury suffered by Mohan Lal, which will fall within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not safe to hold that Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh, petitioners, had shared the common intention with Tarun Kumar.

Hence, Criminal Revision No. 740 of 2002, filed by petitioners Harbans Singh and Harpal Singh, is accepted. The conviction and sentence, awarded to them, are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges.

Petitioner Tarun Kumar had only caused injury to PW.1 Mohan Lal. Even though Mr. R.S. Sailani, Advocate, appearing for petitioner Tarun Kumar, has highlighted the contradiction between the testimonies of PW.1 Mohan Lal and PW.2 Mohinder Pal, regarding the person who had caused the injury, this Court is of the view that sanctity had to be attached with the testimony of PW.1 Mohan Lal, injured. According to PW.1 Mohan Lal, petitioner Tarun Kumar had caused injury on his leg. The trial Court had also charged Tarun Kumar substantively for the offence u/s 325 IPC.

In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996. Mr. Sailani submits that petitioner Tarun Kumar is ready and willing to compensate injured PW.1 Mohan Lal, in monetary terms. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial of about 14 years. Furthermore, Tarun Kumar was taken into custody on 7.1.2002 and was ordered to be released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 20.2.2002. He has undergone an actual sentence of one month and 13 days out of one year''s sentence awarded to him.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that in case the petitioner is ready and willing to compensate injured PW.1 Mohan Lal, in monetary terms, no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2002 is disposed of and the sentence awarded to petitioner Tarun Kumar is reduced to that of already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. The trial Court shall call upon the petitioner to deposit the enhanced amount of fine. The amount, so deposited shall be disbursed to injured PW.1 Mohan Lal. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioner.