Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners -accused, Baljit Singh, Satwinder Singh and Buta Singh, have filed this revision against the judgment dated 11.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by them against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, convicting them of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC and sentencing them as under: Fine of Rs. 300/ - was also imposed on each of the convict. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five days.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that at the time of the Panchayat election, the complainant party had opposed Mukand Singh, paternal uncle of the accused, as a result of which that Mukand Singh had lost. On that account, the accused party was nourishing a grudge against the complainant party. On 19.9.1998, at about 2 -00 p.m., Sukhmandar Singh -complainant, along with Ranjit Singh, was coming back to his village from Bhadaur on a scooter, which was being driven by Ranjit Singh. When they reached near the tube well of Karnail Singh, they were stopped by Buta Singh -accused, by giving a signal with his hand. After the scooter was stopped, Satwinder Singh and Baljit Singh -accused, who were concealing themselves behind the tree, came running to the spot while armed with weapons and Satwinder Singh raised a lalkara challenging the complainant that they would not let them to go unharmed. Thereafter, Baljit Singh gave a blow with his gandasa on his right arm and in the process, he received injury on the thumb of his right hand. The second blow was given by that accused on his left leg, as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, Buta Singh gave a blow with his dang on the right side of his head and second blow with that dang was given on his left arm. The third blow by that accused, with the help of the dang, was given on the upper right arm. Then Satwinder Singh gave a blow with his dang below his right knee and the second blow was given on his right thigh. Buta Singh gave another blow with his dang on his right foot and Satwinder Singh gave blow with his dang on his arm. He himself and Ranjit Singh raised alarm, which attracted Gulab Singh to the spot, who witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, all the accused ran away towards the fields with their respective weapons. The complainant -injured was removed to CHC, Bhadaur, where he was medically examined by Dr. Raj Kumar, who found nine injuries on his person, which were detailed in the Medico Legal Report. The doctor sent his ruqa, Ex. PC, to the police station and on the receipt thereof, Jaspal Singh SI, came to the hospital and made application, Ex. PD/1, to inquire about the fitness of the complainant to make his statement. The doctor declared him unfit to make his statement by making his endorsement on the application. On the next day, similar application was moved by the SI and at that time, the complainant was declared fit to make his statement. The SI recorded his statement and after making his endorsement upon the same, sent that to the police station and on the basis thereof, FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant produced his blood stained wearing apparels before the SI and those were taken into possession, vide a recovery memo. The SI went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same, prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. On 23.9.1998, the complainant was radio logically examined by Dr. Surinder Kumar Garg, PW -1, who found chip fracture of the first Metacarpal bone with dislocation of first meta carpo phalangeal joint of right thumb. On the receipt of the X -ray report, injury No. 2 on the person of the complainant was declared as grievous. In the course of investigation, the accused were arrested. On 28.9.1998, Baljit Singh -accused, was interrogated by SI upon which he suffered a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one gandasa beneath the bed lying in his residential house about which only he had the knowledge and could get the same recovered from that place. In pursuance of that disclosure statement, the accused got recovered one gandasa which was stained with blood. The same was converted into a parcel and was sealed by the SI with his seal "JS" and that sealed parcel was taken into possession, vide a recovery memo. SI prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery and after coming back to the police station, deposited the sealed parcel with the MHC. That sealed parcel was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 6.8.1998 through Sarabjit Singh, Constable, and was delivered at that place with the seal intact. After examination, it was reported by the Deputy Director of that laboratory that the said gandasa was stained with human blood. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before JMIC, Barnala, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Dr. Surinder Kumar Garg, PW -1. Dr. Raj Kumar, PW -2, Sukhmander Singh, complainant, PW -3, Jasvir Singh, PW -4, Tarsem Singh, PW -5, Sarabjit Singh, Constable, PW -6 and Jaspal Singh, PW -7. After the evidence was closed by the prosecution, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstance and pleaded their innocence and false implication. They stated that the complainant received injuries in a scooter accident and on account of the grudge against their uncle, Mukand Singh, made this false case against them. The accused were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence. I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.
(3.) COUNSEL for the accused did not assail the conviction of the accused, so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that the complainant has already entered into a compromise with the accused but on account of his non -availability, the accused are not in a position to prove that compromise on the record. He prayed for the reduction of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused on the ground that they have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of five months.;