Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iddudeen And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 July, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 899-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : July 20, 2010
Iddudeen and others ....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Asstt. Advocate General, Hry.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13/15.10.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Out of the fine imposed upon the appellants, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be paid to complainant-Zeenat.
The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 315 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations that on 28.2.1997, they came to the Bara of complainant-Zeenat and cut a Gular tree from there. Even the cow-dung stored there was displaced by the appellants so as to change the boundary of the Bara of Zeenat. When Zeenat asked them not to do so, they started abusing and thrashing her. Out of the Criminal Appeal No. 899-SB of 1998 -2- appellants, Iddudeen kicked her in the abdomen. At the time of the occurrence, the complainant was carrying a pregnancy of four months. The alarm raised by the complainant attracted mother-in-law and sister- in-law of the complainant, who rescued her from the assailants. She was taken to her house. During the night, she developed pain in her abdomen and also started bleeding. On the next morning, she was brought to Civil Hospital, Sadhaura for treatment by her husband Ali Niwaj. The doctor referred her to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar where she was treated and evacuation of the foetus was done. On receiving ruqa from the doctor, ASI Hakam Singh went to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar on 1.3.1997 to record her statement but she was declared unfit for the said purpose. However, on the following day, she was declared fit to make a statement. Accordingly, the statement of the complainant was recorded, on the basis of which an entry was made in the daily dairy of the police station. After obtaining the opinion of the doctor, who had treated the complainant, that injury of the complainant was grievous, FIR No.70 dated 14.3.1997 was registered at Police Station, Sadhaura against the appellants for the offences under Sections 313 and 325 IPC.
After going through the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offence punishable under Section 315 or Section 313 IPC. Accordingly, the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 315 IPC. They were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced, as mentioned above. Criminal Appeal No. 899-SB of 1998 -3-
Learned counsel for the appellants urged a number of points on the factual aspects. However, I find that the appellants had been rightly held guilty by the trial Court for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence in question had taken place on 28.2.1997. None of the appellants was said to be carrying any weapon. The appellants have already been acquitted of the charge under Section 315 IPC. The offence under Section 325 IPC is punishable with maximum sentence of seven years. None of the appellants is a previous convict. Therefore, it is a fit case where the appellants be released on probation of good conduct.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the appellants, after cutting the Gular tree belonging to the complainant, also tried to change the boundary of the plot. When the complainant, who was a pregnant woman, tried to intervene, they did not spare her and caused injuries to her, resulting in miscarriage. Therefore, no leniency be shown to the appellants in the matter of sentence.
There is no material on the record to show that any of the appellants is a previous convict. None of the appellants was carrying any weapon at the time of the occurrence. Though there may be some dispute between the appellants on the one hand and the complainant on the other regarding boundary of the Bara owned by the complainant yet to begin with none of the appellants had any intention of thrashing or beating the complainant. All the appellants have since been exonerated Criminal Appeal No. 899-SB of 1998 -4- of the charge under Section 315 IPC and instead, convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the heads of the appellants for the last more than 13 years. The present appeal is pending in this Court for about 12 years. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that remaining sentences of the appellants can be set aside and instead, the appellants can be granted the benefit of probation.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. Their remaining sentences of imprisonment are set aside and instead, they are ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing bonds to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and further with the condition that in case of violation of the terms of the bond, they shall be liable to receive sentence in accordance with law. Out of the fine, if already deposited by the appellants, Rs.5,000/- be treated as compensation to be paid to the complainant as earlier directed by the trial Court. Rest of the amount of fine be treated as costs of proceedings. In addition, each of the appellants shall pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of proceedings.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S.MANN )
July 20, 2010 JUDGE
satish