Criminal revision petition filed by convicted persons challenging their sentence under Sections 326, 324, and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for causing grievous and hurt injuries involving Gandasa blades during a water dispute.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower courts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No.922 of 2006
.....
Date of decision:9.8.2011
Kartar Singh and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
.....
Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranbir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate for the complainant.
Mohinder Pal, J.
Petitioners Kartar Singh, Vakil Singh and Jasvir Singh were convicted and sentenced under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short - the Code') by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 8.5.2002. Jasvir Singh and Kartar Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and two years each and to pay fine of 1,000/- and `500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and one month for the offence under Section 326 IPC and under Section 326/34 IPC
Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2006
[2]
respectively. Vakil Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Kartar Singh was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month each for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC. Kartar Singh, Vakil Singh and Jasvir were further sentenced to undergo RI for four months each and to pay a fine of `300/each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days each for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences were, however ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the lower appellate Court has dismissed their appeal and maintained the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court. Hence this criminal revision petition by the petitioners.
Complainant Mithu Singh-injured stated that he is Lambardar of Patti Jatri Ke Man Gidderbaha and is an agriculturist. On 2.3.1995, he along with his brother Angrej Singh were irrigating wheat crop in their fields from Mogha No.137795, left Rajbaha Kot Bhai. Petitioner-Vakil Singh armed with Gandasa, Jasvir Singh alias Sheera Singh armed with Gandasa, Dhir Singh armed with Dang and Kartar Singh armed with Kandali came there and started saying that they would take the turn of water as per the latest/new Warabandi'. The complainant further stated that he asked that he had taken the turn of water from Gurdev Singh as per old Warabandi’, as from Monday onwards, the turn of water was running as per the old `Warabandi' and none had taken the turn of water as per new
Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2006
[3]
Warabandi'. The above said persons remained adamant for taking the turn of water as per new Warabandi'. Vakil Singh gave a Gandasa blow from its sharpened side towards complainant’s brother Angrej Singh, which hit on his right eye. Jasvir Singh gave a Gandasa blow towards Angrej Singh from its sharpened side which hit him near his right eye. The complainant further stated that when he came forward to rescue his brother, Dhir Singh gave blow with his Gandasa which hit on the left side of his chest. As a result of which, he fell down. Kartar Singh gave Kandali blow while he was lying on the ground, which hit on his left arm. Then Dhir Singh again gave a Gandasa blow from its reverse side which hit him on the back side of his right shoulder. Vakil Singh gave three blows with Gandasa from its reverse side to complainant's brother Angrej Singh and Jasvir Singh gave two blows with Gandasa from its reverse side to Angrej Singh who had fallen on the ground. When the complainant raised hue and cry of `Mar Ditta Mar Ditta', then Vakil Singh said that Angrej Singh had died and the complainant be left on the spot to look after him. On hearing hues and cries, Avtar Singh son of Jagir Singh, who was having next turn of water came there. After arranging a vehicle, Avtar Singh took the complainant and his brother Angrej Singh to Civil Hospital. All the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The complainant further stated that in the occurrence Kartar Singh also received minor injuries.
He and his brother Angrej Singh were medico legally examined. They were given treatment but the complainant was not got admitted in the hospital. The motive behind the occurrence was that all the
Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2006
[4]
accused were adamant on taking turn of water from the Mogha forcibly.
I have heard Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ranbir S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State and Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate for the complainant and have perused the records of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out against the petitioners as statement of Dr. Rakesh Gupta does not prove that the injury on the eye of Angrej Singh was permanently impaired his eye sight. He further argued that PW-2 Angrej Singh while appearing before the learned trial Court has not stated that his eye sight has been impaired permanently and medical evidence is not a substantive piece of evidence and it is only a corroborative piece of evidence, which is missing in the statement of Angrej Singh.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the petitioners have been rightly convicted and sentenced in pursuance of the judgments and orders of the Courts below.
Complainant Mithu Singh appeared as PW-1 and supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that petitioner-Vakil gave first blow of his Gandasa towards Angrej Singh which hit him directly on his right eye. Then accused Jasvir Singh gave another Gandasa blow from its sharpened side which hit him near his right eye. PW-2 Angrej Singh injured stated that Vakil Singh accused attacked with Gandasa from sharpened side upon his right eye and second Gandasa blow was given by Jasvir Singh alias
Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2006
[5]
Sheera which hit him above his right eye. PW-5 Dr. Rakesh Gupta who conducted the medico-legal examination of injured Angrej Singh vide MLR (Ex.PW-5/A) has clearly stated that the injury No.1 is an irregular lacerated wound on the right side of forehead overlying right eye brow, just lateral to midline and injury No.2 was an incised wound on lower eye-lid on right side, which was placed horizontally. The testimonies of all the above said witnesses clearly show that there is no different, inconsistency or discrepancy in the seat of injuries, as given in oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2.
The petitioners, except denying the prosecution allegations and pleading false implication simpliciter, could not produce any evidence in defence to dislodge the case of the prosecution.
It is clear that there were four accused in the case. It has been submitted that the injuries on the person of the accused have not been explained. Once, it has been admitted that the accused have received injuries, that means the occurrence is admitted by the accused. It has to be seen as to who was the aggressor.
From the injuries received by the complainant and his brotherAngrej Singh, it is evident that the accused party was the aggressor. The injuries were inflicted with Gandasa and sharp edged weapons, which were on vital parts of the body, which show that the petitioners had come with pre-meditated mind to take the turn of water. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above.
Consequently, I do not find any ground warranting interference
Cr. Rev. No.922 of 2006
[6]
by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This criminal revision
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
August 9, 2011.
(Mohinder Pal) Judge
hsp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court finds any ground in the records to interfere with the trial court's conviction and sentence under Sections 326, 324, and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC via criminal revision.
Whether medical evidence regarding permanent impairment of eyesight mandates setting aside the conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Whether the accused constituyeitior washing guilty of aggravated hurt and voluntarily causing hurt on a common intention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kartar Singh and others
State of Punjab
Mohinder Pal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
