Punjab-Haryana High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 151-Sb Of 2003 vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 April, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 1
Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003
Harnek Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
AND
2. Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003
Darbara Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Date of Decision: 26.4.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate
for the appellants (In Criminal Appeal
No. 151-SB of 2003).
Mr. Jasbir Singh Chahal, Advocate
for the appellant (In Criminal Appeal
No. 165-SB of 2003).
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate
for the complainant.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
By this common order, both the Criminal Appeals viz. Criminal Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 2 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 preferred by Harnek Singh, Bahadur Singh, Labh Singh and Jinder Singh and No. 165-SB of 2003 preferred by Darbara Singh, shall be decided together.
All the above said appellants were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, who vide its judgment dated 24.12.2002 held them guilty for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:-
Sr. Name of Under Sentence awarded
No. Accused Section
1. Harnek 452 IPC To undergo rigorous
Singh imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine
of ` 500, in default whereof
to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of
one month.
324 read with To undergo rigorous
Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC two years.
323 read with To undergo rigorous Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC six months.
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Labh 452 IPC To undergo rigorous Singh imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 500, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
324 read with To undergo rigorous Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC two years.
323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 3 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 Sr. Name of Under Sentence awarded No. Accused Section 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. Jinder 452 IPC To undergo rigorous Singh imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 500, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 324 read with To undergo rigorous
Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC two years.
323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
4. Bahadur 452 IPC To undergo rigorous Singh imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 500, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
324 read with To undergo rigorous Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC two years.
323 read with To undergo rigorous Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC six months.
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
5. Darbara 452 IPC To undergo rigorous Singh imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 500, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 4 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 Sr. Name of Under Sentence awarded No. Accused Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 323 read with To undergo rigorous
Section 149 imprisonment for a period of IPC six months.
148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
The appellants were prosecuted in a private criminal complaint instituted by Paramjit Singh. The complaint contained cross version to case FIR No. 166 dated 24.9.1999, registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, under Sections 307, 323 and 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jinder Singh, one of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003. In the FIR case, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 24.12.2002, held the version, divulged by accused Paramjit Singh to be genuine and recorded acquittal of the accused therein, who were named at the instance of one of the appellants Jinder Singh. The acquittal of the accused, in FIR case, has been separately assailed by the present four appellants by filing a Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2003 which shall be decided vide separate order of even date. Except giving these facts that there was a cross case between the parties, the case against the present appellants will be adjudged on its own merits on the basis of evidence led in this case.
Now, I proceed to notice the contents of the private complaint viz. Sessions Case No. 46 dated 23.12.1999 titled as "Paramjit Singh v. Harnek Singh and Others".
Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 5Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 It is stated in the complaint that on 23.9.1999 Paramjit Singh was standing in front of the main gate of his house when Binder Kaur along with her daughter was coming from Gurudwara Sahib. When they reached in front of the house of complainant, Binder Kaur stated that he had made an obscene gesture. The complainant denied the same upon which Binder Kaur told that he should remain standing there and he would be taught a lesson. Saying this, Binder Kaur went to the house of Harnek Singh. At about 7.30 P.M., electric bulb in the courtyard was emitting light when the complainant saw Darbara Singh armed with gandasa, Labh Singh armed with Soti, Jinder Singh armed with Soti, Harnek Singh and Bahadur Singh were empty handed. They had trespassed into the house of complainant. Harnek Singh raised an exhortation that Paramjit Singh had committed eve teasing, therefore, he should be taught a lesson. Saying so, Darbara Singh gave a blow from his gandasa on the head of Paramjit Singh, who made an attempt to save himself. The blow landed near his right ear. Labh Singh gave one soti blow on the left side of the chest when Paramjit Singh, had made an attempt to go inside the house. Jinder Singh gave one soti blow on the left shoulder of the complainant. At that time, Paramjit Singh fired two shots from his licensed double barrel .12 bore gun in the air. But the accused had not left the house. Paramjit Singh had again fired two shots towards the feet of Bahadur Singh and Jinder Singh due to which the accused had run away. The complainant bolted the gate of his house but the accused were throwing brick bats in the courtyard from outside. The entire occurrence was witnessed by Tara Singh, father Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 6 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 and Mohinder Kaur, wife of the complainant. After some time, Devinder Singh got him admitted in the Civil Hospital. The entire incident was reported to the police but the police had recorded FIR No. 166 on 24.9.1999 against the complainant in connivance with the accused and had submitted challan for the offence under Section 307, 323 and 34 IPC.
The complainant led his preliminary evidence on the basis of which the accused were summoned to stand trial. The present case was tried along with the FIR case. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, on 10.7.2000, had charged the appellants. The charge stated that on 23.9.1999 at about 7.30 P.M. In the area of village Saddarpura, all the accused had committed house trespass by entering into the house of Paramjit Singh, which was being used as human dwelling, having made preparations for causing hurt to him and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. All the appellants were also charged for the offence under Section 148 IPC for having committed an unlawful assembly. Darbara Singh, appellant was substantively charged for the offence under Section 324 IPC, whereas other accused where charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Appellants Labh Singh and Jinder Singh were substantively charged for the offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas other accused were charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Paramjit Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.2 and reiterated as to what was stated in the complaint. This witness was Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 7 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 subjected to searching cross-examination but the defence could not cause any dent in his testimony. Furthermore, his testimony was duly corroborated by his wife PW.1 Mohinder Kaur. Learned counsel for the appellants has not brought into my notice any contradiction, improvements and discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses.
PW.4 Dr. Harinder Sharma, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon, had medicolegally examined Paramjit Singh and had found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. An incised wound 5 cxm x 1.0 cm bone deep on top of vault 1 cm to right of mid line and present 8 cm above right ear pinna. The wound is longitudinal in direction. Infected and advised X-ray examination.
2. An abrasion 4 cm long present on left shoulder on back 5 cm below top. Infected 1 cm medial to lateral margin.
3. Patient complaint of pain and tenderness on chest on front. On examination the chest front is congested and reddish in colour. Advised X-ray examination".
In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that on the same day, he had examined Bahadur Singh, who had suffered seven injuries. All the injuries were declared as simple in nature. It will be pertinent to notice that except injuries No.5 and 6, which were incised wound of Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 8 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 2cm x 0.1 cm x bone deep on vault of mid line, all the injuries were on non vital parts of the body. Jinder Singh had suffered two fire arm injuries. Size of injury No.1 was 1 cm long and 1 cm wide, whereas size of injury No.2 was 2 cm x 0.8 cm. Injury No.1 was on the right cheek, whereas injury No.2 was on the right ear.
PW.3 Lekh Raj, Moharrir Head Constable, proved FIR No. 166 dated 24.9.1999 at the instance of Paramjit Singh alias Pamma.
Thereafter, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to them and the accused denied the same. However, accused Bahadur Singh gave the following version:-
"...I am innocent. On 23.9.1999, Binder Kaur was coming to her house after praying in the Gurudwara. Paramjit Singh accused was standing at the gate of his house. He made a gesture towards Binder Kaur. She objected to it. Then she came to the house of Sher Singh. Where I and Sher Singh, Inder Singh and Piara Singh were standing. She narrated the above said incident. I along with Piara Singh, Sher Singh, Binder Kaur went to the house of Paramjit Singh to make protest to his father. When we reached the house of Paramjit Singh along with Tara Singh and Devinder Singh were present there. Tara Singh and Paramjit Singh were armed with sotis and Devinder Singh with gun. Tara Singh Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 9 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 exhorted Devinder Singh to open fire. Devinder Singh fired in the air. And we reckoned with care. Devinder Singh again fired two shots one hit me on the left arm and second hit Jinder Singh on the upper side of his cheek. Paramjit Singh then stopped Devinder Singh from firing. Devinder Singh went inside. Paramjit Singh and Tara Singh gave me soti blow on my head and back. We raised hue and cry and people collected and accused went inside..."
Bahadur Singh has appeared as DW.1 and reiterated as to what was stated by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Even though a plea has been raised that the defence version given by Bahadur Singh accused should be believed and right of self defence should be granted in favour of the accused by holding that the complainant was aggressor, this Court cannot ignore of the fact that in the present case the occurrence had taken place inside the house of Paramjit Singh, complainant. Though the complainant was armed with fire arm yet he had not taken advantage of the situation. Even though he had fired three shots, injuries caused by him were simple in nature. From the defence version disclosed by DW.1 Bahadur Singh, it is also evident that Binder Kaur disclosed to the accused that Paramjit Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 10 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 while standing in front of his house, had made obscene gesture towards her due to which the accused armed with weapon had gone to the house of the complainant to make protest. It is not a case where the accused simply wanted to lodge the protest when they had gone to the house of complainant armed with weapons. Mere trespassing into the house of Paramjit Singh armed with deadly weapons caused apprehension in his mind that the accused had come to attack him. There was sufficient time for the accused to approach and made complaint to the authorities or to Sarpanch or a Member of Panchayat. Instead of doing so, the accused took arms in their hands and by constituting unlawful assembly of five members went towards the house of complainant. Thus, right of self-defence, as urged by learned counsel for the appellants, cannot be extended to the accused/appellants. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.
In the present case, there is no history of any previous enmity between the parties. On the complaint made by Binder Kaur that the complainant had made obscene gesture, without any pre mediation and on the spur of moment, the accused had gone to the house of the complainant to teach him a lesson. They had also caused simple injuries to Paramjit Singh. In the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1999. A period of about 12 years is going to elapse. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that before the present occurrence or thereafter, the appellants had not committed any other offence. Thus, this Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be granted to the Criminal Appeal No. 151-SB of 2003 And 11 Criminal Appeal No. 165-SB of 2003 appellants to reform themselves and adopt the path of rectitude.
Considering these circumstances, the appellants are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct and be of good behaviour for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The appellants shall undertake to appear and receive the sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so. However, the cost of litigation is assessed at ` 5,000 qua each appellant. The appellants shall deposit the bonds and the cost of litigation before the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to them. The amount, so deposited, shall be paid to the injured/complainant Paramjit Singh as compensation.
With the observations made above, both the appeals are disposed of.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 26, 2011 "DK"