Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nagina Son Of Raja Ram Son Of Ram Chander, ... vs State Of Haryana on 5 February, 2003
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J.
1. Nagina son of Raja Ram, Jagdish son of Sohan Lal and Subhash son of Bhagirath stand convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide judgment dated 16.5.89/17.5.1989 under Section 392 IPC, Nagina and Jagdish Under Section 307 IPC whereas Subhash has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Nagina and Jagdish appellants have been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well. They have been sentence as under:-
1. Accused Nagina
(i) Under Section 392 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years.
(ii) Under Section 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
(iii) Under Section 27 of the Rigorous imprisonment for one Arms Act year. 2. Accused Jagdish (i) Under Section 392 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years (ii) Under Section 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. (iii) Under Section 27 of the Rigorous imprisonment for one Arms Act year. 3. Accused Subhash (i) Under Section 392 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years (ii) Under Section 307 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 5 Section 34 IPC years.
2. Kidar Nath is the complainant and on his report Ex. PG, formal FIR Ex. PG/1 was recorded by the concerned police.
3. In short the case of the prosecution is that Kidar Nath complainant is married with Nirmala of village Biran (Rajasthan) and on 31.7.88, he left his village for Biran on a bus. On the way he dropped at the bus-adda Chuli Kalan and went to the retail shop of his father-in-law Jagdish. It is then the case of the complainant that from there he took Sajjan Kumar with him. Both of them started moving on foot and after covering some distance from village Chuli Kalan when they reached the culvert on the road at about 3.15 PM, three persons were found sitting. They disclosed their names to them as Nagina, Jagdish and Subhash. It is then the case of the complainant that Jagdish allegedly placed a pistol on his chest and asked him to part with whatever valuables he was having with him. Nagina appellant forcibly removed a gold ring from his right hand weighing about half tola worth Rs. 1800/-. Subhash appellant had also forcibly removed a sum of Rs. 205/- from the pocket of the complainant and threatened him and Sajjan Kumar. All the three appellants thereafter ran towards Rajasthan. It is further the case of the complainant that Sajjan Kumar went to village Chulli Kalan and raised alarm for help. Many persons had collected there. Certain persons from the village, armed with lathis and gandasis chased the appellants and consequently, all the three appellants were surrounded by the villagers in the fields of Sishpal of village Chuli Khurd. Jagdish appellant allegedly fired 2/3 shots on those villagers with a view to kill them but no one was injured. Shot fired by Nagina appellant from his country made pistol .12 bore however hit Lachhman on his left side injuring his left flank. The villagers had over-powered the appellants and in that process the appellants had also received injuries. Recoveries were also effected from the appellants at the spot. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellants remained hospitalised for a couple of days and their formal arrest was shown on 5.8.88. On these allegations, the appellants were booked in this case.
4. After the committal proceedings, the trial court charged all the three appellants under Section 392 IPC. Jagdish and Nagina appellants were also charged under Section 307 IPC whereas Subhash was charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Nagina and Jagdish appellants were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. The plea taken by the appellants as emerges from their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that they have been falsely implicated in this case because they belong to the group of supporters of the other political party. It is then the plea of the appellants that there was Gram Panchayat election in village Adampur fixed for 4.8.88 and on 31.7.88 at about 3 p.m. Nagina and other appellants were returning after canvassing the votes in favour of their candidate. Kidar Nath, Sajjan Kumar, Lachhman Dass, Kohar Singh, Kastura Chand and Rattana were hiding themselves at a place and at that time Kidar Nath had a pistol with him whereas others were having lathis. All the appellants were assaulted by Kidar nath and his other companions in which all the three appellants had received serious injuries because they were mercilessly beaten with lathis. It is then the plea of the appellants that Lachhman tried to catch-hold Nagina appellant and as such was engaged in a scuffle and Kidar Nath who was standing at some distance had fired a shot which incidently hit Lachhman on his left side. It is then the stand of the appellants that after they were mercilessly beaten with lathis, they remained hospitalised for few days in Civil Hospital, Adampur as private patients. The police in connivance with the other party had falsely implicated them in this case by twisting the true facts. However, no defence was produced by the appellants.
6. I have heard Mr. Vikas Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the records of the case.
7. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits and has instead prayed for reduction of the sentence only. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the side of the complainant only Lachhman PW12 has received injuries on the left side near his shoulder may be covering some part of the chest also. This injury according to him, has not proved to be serious because Lachhman was discharged from the hospital on the next day itself. Colouring his arguments, learned counsel further submitted that even PW1 Dr. Het Ram has stated that the injury on the person of Lachhman is neither grievous nor dangerous to life. It is further submitted that from the side of the appellants, all the three appellants have received grievous injuries, Nagina received two injuries and injury on the left side of elbow had resulted dislocation of left elbow joint. So far as Jagdish appellant is concerned, he has also received one injury and that too was termed to be grievous because there was dislocation. Subhash had also received as many as four injuries, out of which one injury has resulted into fracture of right elbow and one of the injuries on the person of Subhash is on the head also.
8. Mr. Vikash Kumar further contends that the present occurrence relates to the year 1988 and the appellants have already suffered the rigor of protracted trial of about 14 years. Nagina and Jagdish appellants have otherwise undergone 10 months and odd days as under trial and after conviction whereas Subhash has undergone three months and odd days and as such the case of all the three appellants calls for interference of this court for the purpose of reduction in sentence, learned counsel for the appellants so contends.
9. Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, representing the State of Haryana on the other hand has submitted that the appellants do not deserve any leniency because they had been convicted for the offence under Section 392 IPC as they had committed robbery to the extent of snatching the valuables of Kidar Nath and Nagina while committing robbery had gone to the extent of injuring Lachhman also and as such the appellants do not deserve any leniency in quantum of sentence.
10. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I feel that there is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly from the side of the complainant only Lachhman has received fire arm injury. This injury is not grievous as per the statement of Dr. Het Ram examined as PW1. It is also an admitted fact that Lachhman was discharged from the hospital on the next date of the occurrence. On the other hand Nagina, Jagdish and Subhash have received as many as eight injuries and out of which three injuries had resulted into fractures. Although Jagdish appellant has also been charged under Section 307 IPC but the fire arm allegedly used by him in the occurrence did not hit anybody. Subhash did not cause any injury to anybody as he was un-armed.
11. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the present case into consideration especially when all the three appellants had also received injuries in this occurrence, the ends of justice would be adequately met in case the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them on each of the count. It is ordered accordingly. However, it is further ordered that Nagina appellant would deposit Rs. 5000/- as fine before the trial court within three months from today and in default of payment of fine, he would undergo further RI for six months. In the event of deposit of the fine, a sum of Rs. 4000/- would be disbursed to the injured Lachhman by the trial court.
12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above.