Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman vs The State Of Haryana on 2 February, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998
Date of Decision:02.02.2009
Lachhman
.....Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.3.1998/ order of sentence dated 4.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Lachhman to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the same to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 452 of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 304 Part-II of IPC and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for being paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Sukh, if realised with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
The facts in brief are that on the night intervening 19/20th Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -2- October, 1995, in the area of Village Ridhau, Ram Sukh was asleep in his house situated at the outskirts of the village. On hearing some noise, he woke up and noticed three persons coming down with the help of projections of his house. On being questioned, as to who were they, two of them uttered that after coming down, they would let him know as to who were they. Those persons started hurling lathi blows. In a bid to save himself, he rushed towards the street, but fell down. These assailants rained lathi blows on him. Ram Sukh raised lalkara. When the assailants were in the process of retreating, the face of Lachhman accused got entangled with the iron wire. As its consequence, his face got uncovered. So, he was identified as Lachhman by Ram Sukh. Thereafter, they all three made good their escape by climbing on the roof. Ram Phal was attracted to the place of occurrence. On being enquired by him, Ram Sukh disclosed that Lachhman and his companions had caused him injuries. Meanwhile, Om Parkash also reached there. Ram Sukh was removed to Civil Hospital, Sonepat, where he was admitted and medico-legally examined. On receipt of message from the Civil Hospital, Sonepat, Head Constable Krishan Chand refused to this hospital and recorded the statement of Ram Sukh. As the same did not disclose any cognizable offences, no action was initiated by the police on its basis. SHO Police Station Kharkhoda initially arrayed Lachhman accused under security proceedings. On receipt of information regarding death of Ram Sukh, SI Jabbar Singh went to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak and conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of Ram Sukh. He added the offence under Section 304 of IPC in the FIR which was initially registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -3- Court of the learned Illaqa Magistrate. He committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the Accused.
On commitment, the accused was charged under Section 452, 302 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. A.P. Sharma, PW2 Dr. Subhash Mathur, PW3 Jai Bhagwan, PW4 Dr. Arun Garg, PW5 Rajbir, PW6 Ram Phal, PW7 Om Parkash, PW8 Satbir Singh ASI, PW9 Head Constable Krishan Chand, Pw10 Dhanpat Rai Head Constable, PW11 Inderpal Constable, PW12 Ran Singh, PW13 Jabbar Singh and closed its evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He has put forth that civil litigation is pending between him, his mother on one side and Silag Ram, Ishwar Singh sons of Rameshwar on the other side. In his defence, he examined DW1 Ramesh Chander.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant did not assail conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court in any manner.
Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -4-
This being the Court of first Appeal, I have gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution. As is borne out from the medical evidence, as many as, eight injuries were found on the body of the deceased by Dr. A.P. Sharma, PW1, who has also testified that in his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to the complications of sub-dural haemotomas, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to Dr. Subhash Mathur PW2, the Medical Board had found, as many as, six injuries on the body of Ram Sukh. Ram Sukh in his own statement, which became the basis of the FIR, has mentioned with specificity that when Lachhman was stepping backward along with his co-accused, the cloth with which he had covered his face to conceal his identity had got entangled with the iron wire, with the result such cloth came off his face and sequelly, he was identified by him. This statement of his, in fact assumed the character of Dying Declaration naming the accused- appellant. The record is quite barren to show any reason for the deceased to rope in the accused- appellant falsely on appraisal of the entire evidence on record, it follows that the conviction warrants no interference. As such, it is maintained.
Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has undergone 3 years 4 months and 27 days out of the total sentence. In view of the observations rendered in re:
Nadodi Jayaraman etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 164, the substantive sentence may be reduced to the one already undergone. As against this, the learned State counsel maintained that in view of the nature of offence, there is no scope for reduction in the sentence.Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -5-
I have well considered these submissions.
In this case, initially, the appellant was in muffled face. Of course, as alleged by the prosecution the cloth with which his face lay covered accidentally got removed by coming in touch with the iron wire. In re: Nadodi Jayaraman etc. (supra), the accused were held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The sentence was reduced to the already undergone by the Apex Court. In re: Sawinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 163, the accused had caused death of the deceased over a petty matter and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The sentence was reduced to the already undergone. In re: Balraj v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 200, Ravinder Singh alias Babbu v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 104 and Chanan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 913, the sentence under Section 304(II) of IPC was reduced to the already undergone. In re: Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 467, the sentence under Section 304 (II) of IPC was reduced to the already undergone (13 months). In re: Allis v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 308, the sentence under Section 304(II) of IPC was reduced to the already undergone (one year and eleven months).
The appellant herein has been facing the agony of trial or ordeals of prosecution since October, 1995. Thus, obviously this incident is more than 13 years old. He has been on bail since 7.11.2001 in this appeal. During this period, he has not in any way abused the concession of bail or indulged in any objectionable activity. He was on bail during the trial. Criminal Appeal No.195-SB of 1998 -6- Precedentially, the right of speedy justice is a fundamental right of the appellant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any such event has taken place, which may prompt this Court to take a serious view. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the fact that initially the appellant was in muffled face, when he attacked the deceased and that the proceedings have continued for more than 13 years, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him (3 years 4 months and 27 days). I make an order accordingly. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
February 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No