IMPORTANT POINT
Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that a FIR No. 151 dated 31.10.2004 was lodged against the respondent Bawa Singh and his wife Labh Kaur. The complainant Binder Singh alleged that on 30.10.2004 while he was going on his tractor to his fields he saw the respondent with a cycle and carrying a gandasa accompanied by his wife Labh Kaur whereupon he stopped his tractor. The respondent and his wife were alleged to have said that the complainant needed to be taught a lesson and allegedly hit the complainant with the gandasa. The cries of the complainant alerted his father Jangir Singh and his brother Hardev Singh who rushed to the spot whereupon the respondent and his wife fled abandoning the cycle. The complainant alleged that there was a property dispute between the parties. The complainant was admitted to a hospital and his statement was taken only on the next day i.e. 31.10.2004 on him being declared fit to do so. The site plan was prepared. The cycle was recovered from the spot and the gandasa was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused. The respondent and Labh Kaur were arrested on 07.11.2004 and charges were framed against them under sections 323 and 326 IPC r/w section 34 IPC.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 for proving personal search memo, PW2 Jangir and PW3 Hardev who deposed to not having seen the accused inflicting the injures, PW4 Binder/complainant who supported the prosecution case, PW5 Investigating Officer who proved the possession memo of the cycle and gandasa and PW6 Doctor who examined the complainant and found few simple injuries and one grievous injury on the finger.

5. It was pleaded on behalf of the accused that the cycle allegedly left behind had not been produced. It was alleged that the depositions of PW 2 and 3 could not be relied upon as they were not eye witnesses and were interested witnesses and that the injuries on the complainant or the admitted injuries on the accused were not explained. It was also alleged that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

6. The trial court held that the statements of PW-2 Jangir and PW-3 Hardev were relevant and not merely hearsay evidence and that their statements would not be unreliable merely because they were relatives. The delay in filing the FIR was held to be explained as the complainant was proven to be unfit to make the statement on the day of the incident. The court further noted that though the accused claimed to have been injured, they had not filed a complaint or put any suggestion regarding the same to the prosecution witness. The injuries on the accused were simple in nature. It was held that non-production of the cycle or the blood soaked soil was not fatal to the prosecution case. The court held that the conduct of the accused in travelling one kilometer from their house armed with a gandasa and inflicting injuries on the complainant proved their common intention and that the medical evidence proved that the injuries inflicted were simple and in one instance grievous in nature. The trial court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-for offence punishable under section 326, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-for offence punishable under section 323 IPC. Labh Kaur was also convicted under sections 326 and 323 IPC r/w section 34 IPC and awarded the same sentence.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the respondent and his wife preferred appeal to the Sessions Court, which noted that there was documentary evidence proving that the accused and the complainant were treated by the same doctor.