Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh vs Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder & Ors on 22 May, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.993 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.993 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 22.5.2013
Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder & Ors. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Anju Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1,3 & 4. Mr.A.S.Kalar, AAG Punjab for respondent No.5.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (oral) The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner- complainant Charanjit Singh son of late Chanchal Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against Sukhwinder Singh alias Binder son of Dev Raj and others accused (private respondents), vide FIR No.84 dated 14.7.2002, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 148, 307, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with section 149 IPC and Section 3 (i) (iii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") by the police of Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.
2. Sequelly, the Special Judge acquitted all the accused for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 307/326 IPC and section 3 of the CRR No.993 of 2010 2 Act. Although accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Binder, Satnam Singh and Pavittar Singh were convicted u/ss 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.9.2009, at the same time, they were ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of ` 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to come and receive sentence if so called upon to do so by the Court. They were further directed to pay a sum of `10,000/- each as compensation to the injured-complainant, by means of impugned order of sentence of even date.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since there was sufficient evidence on record to convict the convicts for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 307 and 326 IPC and section 3 of the Act, so, the Special Judge committed a legal mistake only to convict the private respondents u/ss 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC and to release them on probation, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that the trial Judge, after CRR No.993 of 2010 3 considering the fact that it is a case of no injury and nature of other injuries, has rightly acquitted the convicts on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 307 and 326 IPC, by way of impugned judgment of conviction, which, in substance, is as under (paras 21 and 22) :-
"21. Let us, first of all, deal with the propriety of Section 307 IPC having been invoked in this case. It is on the basis of version of the complainant that he was fired at with a double barrel gun that this section was imposed. However, from evidence available on the file, this accusation has turned out to be an empty and hollow. It is, of course, a case of no injury received by the complainant caused by a gun shot. It is quite ludicrous to hear that a person can sneak beneath a Maruti 800 Car in the manner set up by the complainant and avoid being shot at the first place it is highly improbable and impractical, if not impossible, for a person to be able to do so and in the second place if it had really so happened the complainant had offered himself to the offender like a sacrificial goat and could not have escaped from being killed. I am of the considered opinion that the complainant faltered while concocting this allegation. No empty cartridge was recovered by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence. No other mark of any gun shot having been fired at could be noticed by the investigating officer after inspecting the place of occurrence. Merely on the basis of such like lip service from a complainant, who an axe to grind with, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 307 IPC.
22. As for propriety of invocation of Section 326 IPC, the prosecution is equally hard pressed. When the complainant was initially medico legally examined by PW5 Dr.Sukhdev Domeli all of the injuries on the person of complainant were declared simple in nature4 and it was in the wake of protest from the complainant that he was x-rayed again at Civil Hospital and on the basis of that report one of the hurts on the person of complainant was declared grievous in nature attracting Section 326 IPC. It is rightly urged by learned Defence Counsel that x-ray film said have been conducted at Civil Hospital did not see light of the day during entire of the trial. The radiologist has also not been examined by the prosecution and as such it cannot be proved by the prosecution that any of the injury on the person of complainant was grievous in nature, falling within the ambit of Section 320 IPC punishable under Section 326 IPC. In the net result it is held that prosecution has not CRR No.993 of 2010 4 been able to prove either of the charges under Section 307 IPC or under Section 326 IPC."
7. Likewise, the Special Judge has recorded the good grounds to acquit the accused for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 3 of the Act. Moreover, from the evidence brought on record, no offence u/s 3 of the Act is made out against the accused, in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in case Dr.Onkar Chander Jagpal and another Vs. Union Territory,. Chandigarh and another 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
931.
8. At the same time, taking into consideration the number of injuries and ocular as well as medical evidence on record, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the convicts u/ss 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC.
9. Not only that, the trial Judge has rightly granted the probation to the private respondents, vide impugned order of sentence dated 24.9.2009, which is as under:-
"Antecedental track of the accused as has been laid before me does not suggest anything which can lead to deprivation of benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. They have faced music of criminal litigation for about 7 years and must have realized the consequences of such like altercations. In Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1997(2) RCR 215 and Jambar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) RCR 38, the Honourable High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that in cases of conviction recorded under Section 323, 325 IPC, the Court can extend benefit of probation as the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Probation of Offenders Act is one big departure from the ordinary rule of penology. It was promulgated with a view to provide first offenders, convicted of an offence not punishable with imprisonment of life or death. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of Criminal Law is more to reform the individual offender that to punish him. In totality of the convicts are ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of one year from today and to come and CRR No.993 of 2010 5 receive sentence if so called upon to do so by the Court during the said period of one year. They are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to the injured complainant."
10. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has recorded the cogent grounds for acquittal of convicts for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 307 and 326 IPC and section 3 of the Act and for releasing them on probation on account of conviction and sentence u/ss 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC.
11. Therefore, the trial Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence/material on record in the right perspective, has correctly released the convicts on probation. The learned counsel for petitioner- complainant did not point out any material/ground, muchless cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence. Such judgment/order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
22.5.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge