Judgment Writing

Submitted to: Sh. HS Bhangoo and Sh. Baljinder Sra

Submitted by : Priya Gupta, TJO Sonipat (Haryana)

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate, _____

FIR NO.

CNR No._____

Date of Decision: 20/02/2021.

State

Versus

1. Joginder Singh, aged___, S/o___, R/o____

1. Sarabjeet Singh, aged __, S/o____, R/o____
2. Rajinder Singh , aged __, S/o____, R/o____
3. Syam Singh, aged __, S/o____, R/o____
4. Gurdeep Singh, aged __, S/o____, R/o____
…………..Accused

Present: Sh. __, Ld. Counsel for complainant

Sh. ___, ld. Counsel for the accused

Accused persons (on bail) present.

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant, Paramjeet Singh for injuries
caused to him by the accused persons on 01.01.2021 at about 7 AM at village
Dabwali and for the offences under section 147,148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read
with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
1. Brief facts of the case as per the story of the complainant are that on 01.01.2021 at
about 7:00 AM, the complainant was going to his fields in dabwali, When he was in
front of the house of Syam Singh, he was surrounded by Joginder Singh armed with a
gandasa, Sarabjeet Singh armed with Kirpan, Rajindar Singh armed with datar, and
Syam Singh and Gurdeep Singh armed with a lathi each. He further stated that
Joginder Singh raised a lalkara that enemy Paramjeet Singh has arrived and he should
be taught a lesson for filing a civil suit against them and thereafter Sarabjeet Singh
also raised a lalkara that Paramjeet Singh should be done to death. On this all the
accused attacked him with their respective weapons. He further stated that Joginder
Singh gave gandasi blow on his right hand, Sarabjeet gave kirpan blow on his left leg,
Rajindar gave datar blows on the right arm and right leg, Syam Singh and Gurdeep
Singh gave lathi blows on the back and the legs. At this the complainant raised hue
and cry, on hearing which his son Jaswinder Singh who was following him at some
distance had reached the spot and one Jagdeep Singh whose house is nearby reached
the spot. They both intervened and saved his life otherwise he would have been done
to death. He further stated that the accused while leaving the spot held out a threat that
today he had been saved, but he will be done to death on the next available
opportunity. Thereafter his son Jaswinder took him home and arranged a tractor-trolly
and then brought him to the hospital. he was medicolegally examined there by the
doctor. His son Jaswinder had gone to the police station for lodging an FIR. However
the police officials told him that an FIR would be registered after receipt of a medical
report from the hospital. Even after the repeated request of the complainant part the
police officials refused to register any FIR in the matter. He further stated that in their
opinion police officials were trying to help the accused and therefore were not taking
any action against them. Therefore the complainant was left with no option but to file
the present complaint in this court. Hence the complainant has filled the present
complaint against the accused for offences U/S1 47, 148 IPC and 326, 325, 324, 323
and 506 IPC.

2. While taking the cognizance of this case, the court recorded the Preliminary evidence
of the complainant. For which the complainant Paramjeet Singh examined himself as
PW1 and deposed his statement on oath under section 200 of the CrPC. After careful
consideration the court found it proper to postpone the issuance of process and
conducted inquiry u/s 202 where 4 other witnesses were called and their statement
 was recorded. In order to prove the charges the complainant examined the following
witnesses and the documents: PW1 Dr. __ , PW2 Radiologist Dr __, PW3
Complainant Paramjeet Singh, eyewiness PW4 Jaswinder Singh, PW5 Jagdeep Singh
and produced the following documents: Medical Report PW1/B, MLR PW1/C,
pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries PW1/D, PW1/E Opinion on statement
of fitness, PW2/A MLR, X Ray Reports PW2/B, PW2/C, PW2/D, Statement of the
complainant PW3/A. After careful consideration the court found sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. Vide my order dated___ process was issued against
the accused for facing trial under section 147,148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read
with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Upon appearance, all the accused were granted bail. In Pre-charge evidence, the
accused examined complainant witnesses. Arguments heard on question of charge and
the court found enough ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence and accordingly the accused were charged under section 147,148, 323, 324,
325, 326 and 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the complainant was asked to examine
remaining witness, if any and close the complainant evidence. The complainant
closed his evidence vide his separately recorded statement.

4. After the closure of the complainant evidence, the case was posted for recording
statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC. All the incriminating material against the
accused was put to them which they vehemently denied and further stated that they
are falsely implicated by the complainant because of some previous enmity due to a
long pending civil litigation between their families. They further claimed that the
injuries caused to the PW3 Paramjeet Singh are a consequence of Self Defence
wherein the complainant himself came to the house of Syam Singh and attacked him
and in order to rescue him, Syam Singh’s servant Ram and Sham caused him certain
injuries. The accused Gurdeep Singh futher claimed that on the date of occurrence of
the incident, he was not present in the village and was present in his Municipal
Corporation office in Bombay and set up a plea of alibi.

5. In order to disprove the charges the defence examined the following witnesses: DW1
Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Bombay, DW2 Superintendent of the Municipal
 Corporation, Bombay, DW3 Clerk to the Advocate Mr. _ and produced below
documents: DW1/A Attendance Register, DW3/A Zimni Orders of the court proving
alibi of accused Gurdeep Singh.

6. To prove its case the complainant examined firstly, PW3, Paramjeet Singh who is the
injured complainant of the case and he testified that on 01.01.203, he was assaulted by
all the accused while going to his fields and he was rescued by his son PW4 Jaswinder
Singh and PW5 Jagdeep Singh who reached the spot on hearing the hue and cry. And
then he was taken to the hospital by his son where he was medico legally examined
and his statement was recorded by the IO on the basis of which FIR was registered.

7. PW4 Jaswinder Singh has corroborated the prosecution story and testified that on he
and Jagdeep Singh who also reached the spot as he lives nearby rescued his father
otherwise the accused would have killed him.

8. PW5 Jagdeep Singh testified that he reached the spot on hearing the hue and cry, but
he didn’t support the Prosecution story entirely and denied that he saw the accused
assaulting the injured PW3 Paramjeet Singh and upon request by the prosecution he
was cross examined. PW1 and PW2 were the medical officers who examined the
injured on the date of incident and also proved the medical reports.

9. Then the defence led evidence and examined DW1 Clerk from the office of Municipal
Corporation, Bombay who deposed with respect to the plea of alibi of the accused
Gurdeep Singh and testified that accused Gurdeep Singh is employed as a clerk in the
Municipal Corporation Bombay and was present in the office on 0101.2013 at 9:00
AM and that he proved the original attendance register which was produced from his
custody that it bears the signature of Gurdeep Singh marking his presence in the office
that day, he also admitted that every entry is countersigned by the Superintendent
whose signatures he identifies.

10. DW2, the Superintendent of the Municipal Corporation corroborated the defence
story and testified that after the entry of all the employees were made in the register,
he signed on every entry, he identified his signature on the enrty made by Gurdeep
Singh that day.
 11. After that the defence examined DW3, who is the clerk of the advocate Mr.XYZ, and
he testified that he had seen accused Gurdeep Singh in the court that day since
Gurdeep Singh brings all the records of the Municipal Corporation to the advocate for
litigation work. That on that day Gurdeep Singh made an appearance in the court on
behalf of the Municipal Corporation and his presence is also marked in the Zimni
Orders of the court.

ARGUMENTS

12. The ld. Counsel for complainant argued that there is no shred of doubt that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant has examined
PW3 who is the injured complainant of the case and has supported the story. He
testified about the entire occurrence and there is not even a single inconsistency. His
statement is corroborated by medical evidence PW1, PW2 and also PW4 Jaswinder
Singh who is eye witness of the case. He further argued that though the PW5 Jagdeep
Singh turned hostile but he has corroborated the prosecution case to the extent that the
incident did take place on 01.01.2021 and that the complainant was lying on the spot
in the injured condition and blood was flowing from his spots and Jaswinder Singh
was also present on the spot who took his father to his house after the accused fled
away. PW9 has given the details of the investigation and deposed with respect to the
disclosure statement. He further argued That PW4 arranged a tractor trolly and took
his father to the Government Hospital which totally explains delay of the intervening
time between the occurrence and lodging of the FIR. The counsel for complainant
argued that even after the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence
completely failed to discredit the testimony of a single witness and all the witnesses
supported the prosecution case.

13. In reply to the arguments advanced by the prosecution, the ld. Defence Counsel
argued that the Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The evidence produced by the Prosecution is full of inconsistencies and
discrepancies. It is admitted case of the prosecution that there was some family
dispute and pending litigation between the complainant and the accused persons. The
occurrence took place at 5:00 AM in the month of January when the sun rises at
 around 7:30 AM, it was completely dark and PW3 could not have seen the
occurrence, same goes for PW4 as well, so it cannot be ruled out that the injured
Paramjeet Singh was unable to identify the accused due to darkness and because of
previous enmity between the families has falsely implicated the accused. The delay in
lodging the FIR is to concoct a fabricate case as injured was not sure about the
assailant and out of suspicion named the accused. It was also argued that no
independent witness to corroborate the prosecution story has been produced,
Jaswinder Singh is the son of the injured and thus is not an independent witness and is
rather an interested witness on whose testimony not much weight can be placed.
Moreover if the assault is because there was enmity between the families then why
there are no injuries on the person of Jaswinder Singh. This shows that he was not
present at the place of occurrence. No other independent witness was produced
though the place of occurrence is surrounded by many residential houses, it is most
unnatural that neither any nearby resident heard Paramjeet Singh’s hue and cry nor
reached the spot. The accused further argues that the plea of alibi is fully established
and the statement of the witnesses DW1, DW2 and DW3 is totally consistent and no
discrepancy has been proved by the Prosecution in their testimony. Keeping in view
the distance between place of occurrence and Mumbai, there is no inconsistency that
Gurdeep Singh was present at 9:00 AM that day in his office in Mumbai has been
proved as its impossible for the accused to travel from place of occurrence to
Mumbai, so these two facts are totally inconsistent. This fact also established that the
prosecution story cannot be relied upon and if they could falsely implicate Gurdeep
Singh, they can falsely implicate the others also. The trustworthiness of the
prosecution witness is fully demolished. The defence also argued that the plea of self
defence is also proved by the injuries received by Syam Singh and proved by the
medical evidence and the injured Paramjeet Singh himself went to the house of Syam
Singh and attacked him and it was only in self defence his servants in order to save
their master caused certain injuries to Paramjeet Singh. Therefore, considering all
these facts, it is apparent that the prosecution story suffers so many loopholes and has
failed to discharge the burden of proving his case beyond reasonable doubt and
therefore, the accused be given benefit of doubt and be acquitted of all the charges.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

 14. After careful consideration of the material on record and the arguments advanced by
both the counsel for the parties, the court consider the following as the points to be
determined:
i) Whether the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
caused injuries to Paramjeet Singh on 01.01.2021 as alleged in the FIR, and
thereby committed the offences under section 147,148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and
506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code?
i) Whether accused Gurdeep Singh has proved his plea of alibi?
ii) Whether the accused has established his plea of self defence?

ANSWERS TO THE POINT OF DETERMINATION

1. (i) The answer to Point no. 1 is Yes

(ii) The answer to Point no. 2 that is plea of alibi is Yes.
(iii) The answer to Point no. 3 that is plea of self defence is No.

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

2. Firstly dealing with Point (i), it can be further divided into two points:
(a) Whether on 01.01.2021 Paramjeet Singh had injuries on his person?
(b) Whether the aforesaid injuries to Paramjeet Singh are caused by the aforesaid
accused?

3. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the injuries on the person of the Paramjeet
Singh. It has been alleged that Paramjeet Singh suffered injuries caused to him by the
aforesaid accused with their respective weapons. Then upon intervention of his son
PW4 Jaswinder Singh and PW5 Jagdeep Singh he was saved and taken to hospital
where he was medically examined.

4. In order to prove the injuries of Paramjeet Singh, prosecution examined on oath

doctors of government hospital PW1 and PW2. Firstly, PW1 proved that 1.1.2013 the
victim was produced at 9 am in hospital and had injuries which were examined by
him and also proved his medical report of the examination of Paramjeet Singh. Then
PW2 Radiologist of government hospital was examined and he proved that there was
fracture on the person of Paramjeet Singh and further he proved his medical report.
 Further, PW3 victim/ complainant Paramjeet Singh was examined on oath who
suffered a statement to the effect that he suffered injuries on 01.01.2021.

5. In the case of medical witnesses, it is an established fact that they are official witness
and they have no interest in the case. There is no chance of them lying neither in cross
any such suggestion is given by the defence. There is no allegations by defence that
there is false MLR prepared or that these witnesses have any interest in the
complainant or any enmity with the accused. They have passed the test of cross
examination. Also, it is unnatural suggestion that the injuries were friendly.
Therefore, they are reliable witness and they totally support the statement of the
injured on oath and also corroborated by FIR and by statement of eye witness PW5,
PW4. Therefore, on the basis of the above evidence, the prosecution has succeeded in
proving beyond reasonable doubt that on 1.1.2013 Paramjeet Singh suffered the
injuries.

6. Once it is established that alleged injuries were suffered by Surjeet Singh. The next
question to be answered is whether accused caused the said injuries. To prove this
point the prosecution examined the injured PW3 Paramjeet Singh on oath who stated
in his Statement that the accused caused him injuries. His statement is also
corroborated by the statement of eye witness PW4 Jaswinder Singh and also PW5
Jagdeep Singh who though did not fully support the prosecution case. However, even
he, admits the occurrence, the time of occurrence and the place of occurrence that
there were injuries on Paramjeet Singh and he was lying on floor and Jaswinder was
present there.

7. It has been argued by the Defence that this evidence is not sufficient for conviction.
There is no independent witness as eye witness PW4 Jaswinder is the son of the
injured Paramjeet Singh. Further, if there was previous enmity between the families
then why there are no injuries on the person of Jaswinder. It is most unnatural that he
did not receive any injury who intervened in the fight which raises a doubt as to his
presence at the place and time of occurrence. Moreover If he was actually present at
spot, he would try to rescue his father and there is no reason why the accused would
not cause injuries to him. The only independent witness PW5 Jagdeep Singh has
turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, so his statement has to be
 discarded. The only witness on which the prosecution is relying upon is the injured
Paramjeet Singh. There is Delay in filing of FIR. Also, It was dark ,so actual
assailants could not be identified. The injured Paramjeet Singh has named the accused
on the basis of suspicion. There were injuries on accused which are not explained by
the prosecution. Further, the defence has proved the Plea of alibi of Gurdeep Singh
which shows that the prosecution witnesses are liars and cannot be believed.
8. From the above averments, the court concluded that the injuries on Paramjeet Singh
were caused by the abovesaid accused only. The said arguments of defence are
meritless. Prosecution has led sufficient and reliable evidence. PW3 Paramjeet Singh
is injured and his testimony can be totally relied upon.

9. In the case of Bhajan singh v state of Haryana 2011 (7) SCC 421, it was held that
the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness
comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is
unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
"Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". Thus, the evidence
of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection
of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. 

10. Further, PW4 Jaswinder has fully corroborated the statement of victim PW3
Paramjeet Singh. Merely because he is a close relative does not mean that evidence
cannot be relied upon. Absence of injuries to PW4 does not necessarily mean that he
was not present at the spot. In the case of Sucha Singh v State Of Punjab 2003 (7)
SCC 643, it was held that
“How a person would react in a situation like this cannot be encompassed by any rigid
formula. It would depend on many factors, like in the present case where witnesses
are unarmed, but the assailants are armed with deadly weapons. In a given case
instinct of self-preservation can be the dominant instinct. That being the position, their
inaction in not coming to rescue of the deceased cannot be a ground for discarding
their evidence.”

11. Also with respect to the testimony of PW5 Jagdeep Singh, it is well settled Law that
evidence of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto. In Bhagwan singh v State
of MP 1976 (1) SCC 389, it was held that the fact that the court gave permission to
 the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness, thus characterising him as, what is
described as a hostile witness, does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence
remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his
testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

12. Even if evidence of PW4 and PW5 is not considered still conviction can be based on
the sole testimony of Surjeet Singh. Testimony of Surjeet Singh is totally reliable. It
does not suffer from any material discrepancy. In the case of Chako v State of
Kerala 2004(12) SCC 269, the hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Conviction can
be based on the testimony of single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration
may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished
and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was
speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained.

13. It is totally in consonance with the FIR, which is the earliest version of the present
occurrence and there was no inordinate delay in lodging of FIR. As soon as victim
Paramjeet Singh was taken to the hospital there he was medically examined and ruqa
was sent to police station by the doctor and upon receiving which the IO came to the
hospital and recorded statement of the victim Paramjeet Singh on the basis of which
FIR was registered. Thereby, totally explaining the delay in recording of the FIR.

14. The oral evidence is totally corroborated by the medical evidence. All the injuries
stated in the FIR and in statement of PW3 were found by the doctor. Weapons of
offence were shown to the doctor and he agrees that injuries in question could be
caused by these weapons. The oral evidence is further corroborated by recovery of
weapons from accused and the report of FSL shows human blood on these weapons
which were recovered, just 3 days after the occurrence. The IO, recovered blood from
the spot, which was also found to be human blood by FSL.

15. The allegations on identification of accused are also meritless. The Accused were
already known to injured, as they are from same village. Further, they raised lalkara
from which their voice can be recognised. Moreover it has been proved that there was
light from bulb installed outside the house of Jagdeep Singh.
16. Therefore, it has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the
injuries to Paramjeet Singh are caused by the accused. However Effect of plea of
alibi will be discussed under point no.2. So subject to findings on point 2 and 3,
prosecution has proved point 1.

Point 2: Plea of Alibi

1. The Initial burden of proof has been discharged by the prosecution to establish that
the accused caused the injuries to Paramjeet Singh. Now the burden shifted on the
accused to disprove their guilt. It has been pleaded by the accused Gurdeep Singh in
his section 313 CrPC statement that on the day of incident he was present in his office
at 9:00 AM in Municipal Corporation, Mumbai which makes it practically impossible
for him to be present on the incident spot at 5:00 am on the same morning which are
located at a distance of about 1500 kms.
2. In order to prove the plea of alibi of Gurdeep Singh, the defence has examined 3
witnesses, DW1, colleague of Gurdeep Singh in the municipal corporation, Bombay
who has testified that he met Gurdeep Singh on 01.01.2021 in the office and he has
also produced the attendance register of the date on which Gurdeep Singh has marked
his presence and which has been counter signed by the Superintendent of the
Corporation and his signatures are identified by the employee DW1. DW2 who is the
Superintendent of the Corporation corroborated the statement of DW1. DW3 who is
the clerk of the advocate who met Gurdeep Singh in the advocate’s chamber has also
testified that on 01.01.2021 he appeared in the court on behalf of the corporation
related to certain proceedings and he produced the zimni records of that date wherein
the presence of Gurdeep Singh is marked by the learned court.
Further it has been argued that just like the prosecution has falsely implicated
Gurdeep Singh, other accused are also falsely implicated and the prosecution
witnesses are liars and can not to be believed. The prosecution argued that the said
evidences are fabricated and the witnesses are close friends of the accused and the
attendance register has not been signed by the superintendent on all the dates which
goes to show that the his sign could have been managed on a later date and such
registers are easily available in the market and could be purchased and prepared at a
later date.
3. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer the law on plea of alibi. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Binay Kumar v the State of Bihar 1997 (1) SCC 283 held that
Once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the
accused, who adopts the plea of alibi to prove it with absolute certainty So as to
exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence
of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the
prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe
any counter evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence
happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such
a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence
at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would no doubt, be entitled
to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.
4. Similarly in Dudh Nath pandey vs state of Utter Pradesh (1981) 2 SCC 166, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the plea of alibi postulates the physical
impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his
presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the
accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place
where the crime was committed. 
5. Futher in the case of Mohinder Singh vs The State 1950 SCR 821, it was held that
the standard of proof which is required in regard to that plea must be the same as the
standard which is applied to the prosecution evidence and in both cases it should be a
reasonable standard.
6. From the above discussion and authorities cited, it is established that the defence
witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination and no material has been
extracted which could raise any doubts with respect to the fact that they are lying.
They are reliable and passed the test of cross examination. DW2 is a senior officer
and there are no reasons to doubt his statement. DW3 has proved that Gurdeep Singh
attended court on 01/01/2013 and has also produced Jimny order, where presence of
Gurdeep Singh was marked. Therefore, Gurdeep has been successful in proving his
plea that he was present at Bombay on that day which is at a distance of 1500kms
from the place of occurrence, making it physically impossible to be present at place of
occurrence at 5 am same day.
7. The Defence further argued that when plea of alibi accepted, it further proves that the
prosecution witnesses have made false statements and are liars and their evidence
cannot be relied upon. But the prosection relied upon the case of Joginder Singh v
State Of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643, where it was held that
It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from
grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact
that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons.
Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the
beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in
India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the
status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in
such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The
doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply
in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of
evidence'.
Therefore, relying upon the principle laid down in the judgment, it is clear that merely
because there is some discrepancy the whole of prosecution evidence is not to be
discarded especially when the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the case is proved against all the other accused.

Point 3: Plea of self defence

8. The accused Syam Singh has taken the defence of self defence in his Section 313 of
CrPC statement and has suggested to prosecution witness also and alleged that it was
actually Paramjeet Singh who went to Syam Singh’s house on 01.01.2021 at about
5:00 AM and called him out and on his coming out started attacking him and on the
hue and cry raised by Syam Singh, his servants Ram Singh and Shyam Singh caused
him injuries in order to rescue Syam Singh.
9. In order to prove the plea, the defence examined DW4 doctor who in his report has
proved that Syam Singh had a contusion on his back which could be caused by a blunt
weapon. The prosecution suggested to the witness DW4 that if the contusion on the
back of Syam Singh can be caused by a friendly hand and to which the doctor has not
denied the possibility. The prosecution even suggested that the duration of the injury
 is suspicious as Syam Singh was examined on 02.01.2013, if he suffered the injury on
01.01.2021, then why the medical examination was done after a day.
10. Considering the witnesses examined and the arguments advanced, the plea of self
defence is not proved as the examination of key witnesses that is the servants of Syam
Singh, Ram and Sham was never undertaken by the defence before the court.
Moreover, it is most unnatural that in an FIR which is the first version of the crime,
the victim leaves out the name of the main attackers, though it could be imagined that
the victim could falsely implicate the non participants but it couldn’t be imagined that
the victim leaves out that name of the actual participants at the time of giving the first
version of the incident which happened 4-5 hours after the incident in the hospital
only.
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others, 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 276 it was
held that:
Where the witness is the victim, it would be their endeavour to see that the real
culprits are punished and normally they would not implicate wrong persons in the
crime, so as to allow the real culprits to escape unpunished."
11. Even if the court is to believe the story of the defence that the injured Paramjeet Singh
was the aggressor and Syam Singh only acted in self defence, then also the plea of
self defence being available as this plea is only available as a shield and not as sword.
Where Syam Singh as per DW4 has one injury which is a contusion on the back, the
court doesn’t understand that how causing 7-8 injuries that too grievous and simple in
nature is self defence. They have exceeded the right to private defence. This plea of
self defence is thus unavailable to the accused in the present circumstances. The plea
of defence that the injury on the person of accused Syam Singh has not been
explained by the prosecution, is not fatal in this case. In Vijayee Singh and Ors. v.
State of U.P. (AIR 1990 SC 1459), it is observed that any non-explanation of the
injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a
non-explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version
which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is
clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the Court can distinguish the truth from
falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot
by itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case.
Much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.  On the basis of the
aforesaid discussion, the court cannot rule out the prosecution story of the injury
 being caused by friendly hand and furthermore, finds that the plea of self defence is
not available in the present circumstances. It is a mertiless plea and rejected in this
case.

CONCLUSION
12. The Prosecution has succeeded to established its case beyond reasonable doubt
against all the accused except Gurdeep Singh. It has been proved that Succha Singh
and Sarabjeet Singh have caused grevious injuries by sharped edged weapon gandasa
and kirpan to Paramjeet Singh under Section 326 of IPC. Rajinder Singh armed with
datar and caused simple injuries to Paramjeet Singh and prosecution has proved the
offence under section 324 IPC. Prosecution has proved that Syam Singh was armed
with lathi and caused injuries under section 325, 323 of IPC. Accused Gurdeep singh
has proved his plea of alibi and thus making the accused persons less than five.
Therefore, Section 147, 148 and149 IPC is not attracted in the present case. But they
can be convicted under section 34 IPC even if no charge is framed and the ingredients
of section 34 are made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malu Yadav v.
State of Bihar 2002 (5) SCC 724 held that even if the offence under section 149 IPC
is not made out due to less number of accused, if the ingredients of the section 34 IPC
are made out, then the accused can be convicted of the offences read with section 34
even if the charge is not framed by the court. In the present case, the ingredients of the
section 34 that is of the criminal act done in the furtherance of the common intention
has been fully established as all the accused surrounded the victim in his fields armed
with weapons at the same time and also two accused raised lalkara that the victim will
be done to death and while fleding the spot they gain threatened the accused that he
will be killed at the next available opportunity. These circumstances sufficiently fulfill
the requirement of the section 34.
13. Therefore, accused Joginder Singh and Sarabjeet Singh is held liable for major
offence of section 326 and vicariously liable to be punished under section
323,324,325 read with section 34 and accused Rajinder Singh is held guilty for major
offence of section 324 and vicariously liable under section 323, 325 and 326 read with
section 34. Accused Syam Singh is held guilty under main offence of section 323 and
325 and vicariously liable under section 324 and 326 read with section 34. Bail bonds
of these accused cancelled and they are taken into custody. Sureties are discharged.
 Gurdeep Singh is acquitted of all charges and his Bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties
stand discharged.
Now to come up on arguments on question of sentence and question of compensation
if any to the injured.

Hearing on question of sentence

Heard the learned defence counsel and convicts on the quantum of sentence. Ld.
counsel for convicts argued that the convicts were first offenders. On the other hand
counsel for complainant has argued that maximum penalty should be awarded to
the convicts, so that it serves as a deterrent for the like minded people. No ground is
made out to release them on probation. Hence, taking into consideration the above
referred discussions convicts are sentenced as under :-

Convict Joginder Singh:

Serial Number Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence

1 326 of IPC 03 year rigorous 10000/- 6 months R.I

imprisonment

2 325 of IPC r/w 34 01 years rigorous 5,000/- 4 months R.I

imprisonment

3 324 of IPC r/w 1 years rigorous 4,000/- 3 months R.I

34 imprisonment

4 323 of IPC r/w 34 6 months 1000/- 1 months R.I

rigorous
imprisonment

Convict Sarabjeet Singh:

Serial Number Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence

1 326 of IPC 03 year rigorous 10000/- 6 months R.I

imprisonment
 2 325 of IPC r/w 34 01 years rigorous 5,000/- 4 months R.I
imprisonment

3 324 of IPC r/w 1 years rigorous 4,000/- 3 months R.I

34 imprisonment

4 323 of IPC r/w 34 6 months 1000/- 1 months R.I

rigorous
imprisonment

Convict Rajinder Singh:

Serial Number Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence

1 326 of IPC r/w 02 year rigorous 10000/- 6 months R.I

34 imprisonment

2 325 of IPC r/w 34 01 years rigorous 5,000/- 4 months R.I

imprisonment

3 324 of IPC 1 years rigorous 4,000/- 3 months R.I

imprisonment

4 323 of IPC r/w 34 6 months 1000/- 1 months R.I

rigorous
imprisonment

Convict Syam Singh:

Serial Number Section Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence

1 326 of IPC r/w 02 year rigorous 10000/- 6 months R.I

34 imprisonment

2 325 of IPC 02 years rigorous 5,000/- 4 months R.I

imprisonment
 3 324 of IPC r/w 1 years rigorous 4,000/- 3 months R.I
34 imprisonment

4 323 of IPC 6 months 1000/- 1 months R.I

rigorous
imprisonment

Sentences so awarded shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by
the convicts during the trial or investigation be set off against the substantive sentence
awarded today. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced:

20/2/2021 Anubha Jindal

Judicial Magistrate,

Sangrur