Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs Balraj Singh And Ors on 23 September, 2022
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 1767 of 2016
Date of Decision:- 23.09.2022
Gurpreet Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Baljraj Singh & Ors.
... Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
*****
Argued by :- Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondents No.1 to 3.
*****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, confirming and upholding the
judgment and order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, whereby respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur
was acquitted while respondent No.1 Balraj Singh and respondent No.3
Yadvinder Singh were convicted under Section 323 IPC and released on
probation.
The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.31 dated 14.03.2010
was registered under Section 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC at Police
Station Sadar Faridkot, on the basis of statement of complainant Gurpreet
1 of 7
Singh wherein he stated that on 13.03.2010 he had gone to his fields and at
about 4.00 PM, he saw that respondent No.1 Balraj Singh armed with
gandasa, respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur armed with gandasa, Teja Singh
(juvenile) armed with wooden stick and respondent No.3 Yadwinder Singh
were standing outside their house and dismantling the khaal (water channel)
and when the complainant refrained them from doing so, Sukhjinder Kaur
attacked him and gave gandasa blow on the left side of forehead of
complainant, while Balraj Singh raised lalkara and asked his son Yadvinder
Singh to bring rifle from his house. In the meantime, said Balraj Singh gave
blow with reverse side of gandasa which hit on the left arm of complainant.
Teja Singh gave stick blows which hit on the right side of waist and left leg
of complainant. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the complainant, Jasvir
Singh neighbor of Balraj Singh came out along with Pritam Singh and both
of them rescued the complainant and they also caught hold of rifle from the
hands of Yadwinder Singh, who reached there armed with rifle. Thereafter,
the complainant was taken to GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot
for his treatment. The motive behind the occurrence was that Balraj Singh
felt offended when the complainant stopped him from dismantling khaal
(water channel).
During investigation the police inspected the place of
occurrence and the accused were arrested and finally the challan was
presented against juvenile offender in the court of Principal Magistrate
Juvenile Justice Board while the challan against respondent Nos.1 to 3 was
filed in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate.
2 of 7
The trial Court framed charges under Section 323, 324 read
with Section 34 IPC against respondents No.1 to 3, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW1
complainant Gurpreet Singh, PW2 Jasvir Singh (eye-witness), PW3 Pritam
Singh (eye-witness), PW4 ASI Jarnail Singh, PW5 Dr. Anmol Grover, PW6
Dr. Shilekh Mittal and PW7 ASI Sukhdev Singh.
Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating evidence was put to them but they
denied the same and pleaded innocence. However, they had not lead any
evidence in their defence.
After hearing the learned APP for the State and the defence
counsel, the trial Court acquitted respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur but
convicted Balraj Singh and Yadwinder Singh under Section 323 IPC and
granted them concession of probation with an undertaking to keep peace and
be of good behavior for a period of one year and further burdened them with
litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- each. The respondents complied with the said
order dated 11.09.2014.
Being not satisfied, complainant Gurpreet Singh filed an appeal
against the aforesaid judgment and order of the trial Court dated 11.09.2014.
The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridkot vide judgment dated 14.03.2016, after hearing both the parties.
Being dis-satisfied, petitioner-complainant Gurpreet Singh has
filed the present revision petition alleging that respondent No.2 Sukhjinder
3 of 7
Kaur was wrongly acquitted by the Courts below and further to sentence
respondents No.1 to 3 in accordance with law.
On notice of motion, none has put in appearance on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 3.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court
wrongly acquitted respondent No.2 Sukhjinder Kaur, despite the fact that
enough evidence is available on record to prove that she was present at the
spot and caused injury on the forehead of the petitioner with gandasa and
thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, as the respondents were armed with deadly weapons and they assaulted
the petitioner, they are not entitled to get concession of probation and should
have been sentenced to imprisonment under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. The
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned judgments
passed by the Courts below being illegal and perverse are liable to be set
aside.
The State counsel has pleaded no objection if the present
revision petition is allowed and the respondents No.1 to 3 are sentenced to
imprisonment as per law.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner.
FIR in this case was registered against respondents No.1 to 3
and Teja Singh (juvenile offender) under Sections 323, 324 read with
Section 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, challan was also
4 of 7
presented against respondents No.1 to 3 under Sections 323, 324 read with
Section 34 IPC. During trial the complainant appeared in the witness box as
PW1 and also examined two eye witnesses namely PW2 Jasvir Singh and
PW3 Pritam Singh to prove the ocular version, as has been narrated in the
FIR.
From the perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that
the complainant did not state anything incriminating against respondent
No.2-Sukhjinder Kaur in his testimony. Even PW2 Jasvir Singh also had not
named respondent No.2-Sukhjinder Kaur in his examination-in-chief, while
PW3 Pritam Singh stated that said Sukhjinder Kaur was present at the spot
but was armed with wooden stick. In view of the aforesaid contradictions
being there in the testimonies of the complainant and two eye-witnesses, the
trial Court rightly acquitted respondent No.2-Sukhjinder Kaur by giving her
a benefit of doubt. Even the Appellate Court also rightly upheld the acquittal
of respondent No.2-Sukhjinder Kaur.
The complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW1
deposed that respondent No.1-Balraj Singh and respondent No.3-Yadwinder
Singh caused injuries to him with blunt weapons. The testimony of the
complainant to this effect was fully corroborated by PW2 Jasvir Singh and
PW3 Pritam Singh, both of whom witnessed the occurrence. Further, the
aforesaid ocular version given by PW1, PW2 and PW3 was fully
corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of the statements of PW5
Dr. Anmol Grover and PW6 Dr. Shilekh Mittal. As per the medical evidence
aforesaid injuries caused to complainant Gurpreet Singh by respondent No.1
and respondent No.3 were found to be simple in nature. So the trial Court
5 of 7
rightly convicted respondent No.1 Balraj Singh and respondent No.3
Yadwinder Singh under Section 323 IPC. The said finding of the trial Court
was upheld by the appellate Court after proper appraisal of the evidence led
by the prosecution.
The petitioner has also laid challenge to the order dated
11.09.2014 passed by the trial Court whereby respondent No.1 Balraj Singh
and respondent No.3 Yadwinder Singh were given benefit of probation, as
well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Court dated 14.03.2016
whereby the said order of probation was upheld.
The object of criminal law is more inclined towards the
reformation of the offenders. The suspension of sentence in such like cases
serves the dual purpose of deterrence and reformation. The aim of Section
360 Cr.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is to prevent
offenders like respondents No.1 and 3 from being committed to jail, where
they may associate with hardened criminals, who may lead them further to
the path of crime.
In the instant case, the Trial Court while granting a concession
of probation to respondents No.1 and 3 took into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence committed by them
and their antecedents. The trial Court also burdened respondent No.1 and 3
with costs of Rs.1000/- each, which has already been paid. Counsel for the
petitioner has failed to show that during the period of probation of one year,
respondents No.1 and 3, misused the said concession or committed breach of
terms and conditions of probation bonds furnished by them by repeating
6 of 7
offence of similar nature. Also there is nothing on record to establish that
respondents No.1 and 3 were previous convicts.
In the light of above, this Court is of the view that counsel for
the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the
impugned judgments/order.
Consequently, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed
being devoid of merits.
( KARAMJIT SINGH)
23.09.2022 JUDGE
Jiten/Gaurav Sorot/P.Chawla
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
7 of 7
