2013 Supreme(P&H) 897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Criminal Appeal No.S-123-SB of 2003
Satnam Singh alias Kala & Anr.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 24/10/2013}
For the Appellants:Mr. J.S. Mehandiratta, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State:Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326--Grievou Hurt--Acquittal--Non proving of X-rays films--Held; Prosecution has not taken any step to examine the radiologist--Even in cross-examination, the prosecution has not put the x-ray films before doctor for proving the same--A prejudice has been caused to the accused as no opportunity to cross-examine the radiologist has been given to them. (Para 15)
The x-ray reports cannot be held as proved by identifying the signatures of Dr. Gurmit Singh especially when he appeared in this case as DW1 and the said reports have not been put to him--Therefore, the x-ray reports Ex.PL/1 and Ex.PJ/1 are not proved as per law.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.324 & 326--Hurt--Grievou Hurt--Injuries caused by sharp edged weapon on head and right arm--Prosecution failed to prove X-ray films on record--Which means that the prosecution has only proved simple injuries caused with sharp edged weapon and the case will fall under Section 324 IPC--Sentence reduced to already undergone.
Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Appellants Satnam Singh alias Kala and Randhir Singh alias Dhira have filed the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur, vide which they have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each on each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months each on each count under Sections 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.05.2000, Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh received wireless message that Tarlok Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were admitted with injuries in Civil Hospital, Batala. Then Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh alongwith other police officials reached the said hospital and after obtaining the opinion regarding the fitness of injured, statement Ex.PA of Tarlok Singh was recorded. Complainant Tarlok Singh, in his statement, stated that Lakhwinder Singh, Randhir Singh and Surjit Singh are his brothers. Randhir Singh was forcibly cultivating 9 marlas of land belonging to Surjit Singh. In a joint family meeting, all the members tried to persuade Randhir Singh to give up the possession of said 9 marlas of land but he told that he will tell after discussing the matter with his family members.
3. On 17.05.2000 at about 5:00 p.m., Randhir Singh hired a tractor and started ploughing the said 9 marlas of land. When the complainant went there, he saw accused Satnam Singh armed with ‘kirpan’ and accused Randhir Singh armed with ‘dattar’ standing there. When complainant and his brother Lakhwinder Singh started preventing Randhir Singh not to plough the land of Surjit Singh then Randhir Singh raised lalkara and Satnam Singh alias Kala gave a ‘kirpan’ blow on the right side of head of complainant and he fell down. Satnam Singh again gave a ‘kirpan’ blow on the right arm of complainant. Randhir Singh inflicted a ‘dattar blow which hit on the left arm of Lakhwinder Singh. When complainant and Lakhwinder Singh raised alarm, Manjit Kaur, wife of complainant, reached the spot. Then both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. The owner of the tractor also ran away from the site of occurrence with his tractor. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Rough site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested and ‘kirpan’ was recovered from Satnam Singh and the same was taken into police possession. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
4. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, Satnam Singh alias Kala accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Randhir Singh accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Tarlok Singh, complainant and injured, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Manjit Kaur, wife of complainant Tarlok Singh (PW1) also deposed as per prosecution version. PW3 Lakhwinder Singh, another injured, did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. PW4 Sub Inspector Malkiat Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case. PW5 ASI Baldev Singh, who joined the police party headed by Sub Inspec