Under Section,Sentence
326 IPC,"Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.1,000/-, in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
323 IPC,Rigorous imprisonment for three months.
The following injuries were found on the person of complainant PW5 Gurdev Singh:-,
i) Incised wound 3 x 0.75 cms going inwards, the length of which could not be ascertained on the posterior aspect of left elbow joint. Fresh blood was",
oozing out. X-ray was advised, left elbow joint. AP & lateral view. As per X-ray report Ex.PW2/A it was a fracture of olecranun without callus.",
ii)Lacerated injury 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms on the center of scalp region 12 cm away from left ear pinna. Clotted blood was present. X-ray skull, A.P.",
Laternal view was advised.,
On the basis of X-ray report, injury No.1 on the person of complainant was declared grievous in nature while injury No.2 was declared as simple.",
A perusal of the medico-legal reports of both the complainant and his wife injured Gurmeet Kaur coupled with the opinion of the attending Doctor,
PW1 Dr.Sheetal Jain that the injuries particularly injury No.1 on the person of the complainant was caused with a sharp edged weapon fully,
corroborates the ocular testimony.,
The contention of the defence counsel that the appellant had caused the injuries on the complainant in exercise of right of private defence, in the",
circumstances and findings on record, does not deserve any merit inasmuch as the occurrence admittedly took place in the house of the complainant",
where the appellant had gone armed with a gandasi, which fact has not even been disputed in any manner by the appellant. Further the submission of",
the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was the agressor is totally bereft of any merit and does not find support whatsoever from,
any evidence on record. In fact, it is very strange that on one hand the learned counsel for the appellant tried to make it out to be a case of self-",
defence and in the same breath the suggestion given to the complainant was that it was in fact a case of free fight. There is not even an iota of,
evidence much less any circumstance on record to suggest even remotely that the occurrence could have been the result of a free fight.,
Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that with regard to the same occurrence, cross cases were registered; one on the",
statement of the appellant-Jagdev Singh under Sections 307/326/324 IPC and another on the statement of the complainant-Gurdev Singh under,
Sections 326/324/34 IPC, but the learned trial Court erroneously decided the two cases vide separate judgments which as per the learned counsel for",
the appellant is patently illegal.,
In nutshell, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court should have disposed of the two cases by a single",
judgment and not by two separate ones is totally devoid of any merit as also against the settled principles of law.,
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 743 reiterated its earlier view given in Nathi Lal and others v. State,
of U.P. and another, 1990 Supp SCC 145 wherein it has been held that the same learned Judge in cross cases must dispose of the matters by two",
separate judgments and in deciding each of the cases, he can rely upon only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The Hon'ble Supreme",
Court emphatically held that the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in,
the cross case as each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being,
influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case.,
In light of the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2004",
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, are upheld.",
Appeal is dismissed.,