Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karam Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 29 July, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. 675-SB of 1998
Date of Decision 29.7.2010
Karam Singh and others
........ Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Karam Singh, Mehar Singh, Gurdial Singh, Bachan Singh, Ram Singh, Karnail Singh, Sakandar Singh and Pala Singh, were sent up for trial by the Station House Officer of Police Station Julkan, on the allegation that on 9.7.1993, at about 8/8.30 a.m. they fully armed with weapons have caused injuries to Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Hardial Singh residents of village Handana.
Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.8.1998, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, they were convicted under Sections 307, 326/148, 324 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced as under:
1. Ram Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for the period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, further undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 307.CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -2-
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for nine months under Section 326/149 IPC.
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Sections 324/149 IPC.
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
2. Karnail Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of nine months under Section 326 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years, under Sections 324/149 IPC; and
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year an under Section 148 IPC.
3. Bachna i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced tounder go RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -3-
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years, under Sections 324/149 IPC; and
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
4. Gurdial Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years, under Section 324 IPC;
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
5. Mehar Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year unde Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 324 IPC;
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -4-
6. Karam Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 324 IPC;
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
7.Surinder Singh @ Sikander Singh i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 324 IPC;
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
8. Pala i) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of one year under Sections 307/149 IPC;CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -5-
ii) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for nine months under Sections 326/149 IPC;
iii) He is sentenced to under RI for a period of two years under Section 324 IPC; and
iv) He is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Harbans Singh, complainant alongwith his brothers Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh injured, were living in village Handana whereas their elder brother Sukhdev Singh had been living in village Balbehra. Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh were residing jointly and were irrigating their land by pumping out water from river Ghaggar with the help of a diesel engine by keeping the same on the bank of Ghaggar river. They had constructed a water course in the passage to irrigate their land.
Land of Ram Singh, adjoins that passage. On 8.7.1993, the accused had demolished that water course. On 9.7.1993, complainant Harbans Singh and his brothers were reconstructing that water channel at about 8/8.30 a.m. All the accused kept on watching them while sitting in the kotha of the tube well of Ram Singh. Accused had gone towards the village side and came back after 15-20 minutes armed with different weapons. Karnail Singh raised a Lalkara that they would be taught a lesson for constructing the water course and by saying so, he gave a blow with his kirpan to Harbans Singh on the back of his left hand. Gurdial Singh gave a blow with his spear on his right ear, whereas Mehar Singh gave a blow with his spear below the knee of his right leg. Karam Singh and Surinder Singh had also attacked Jarnail Singh. CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -6- Karnail Singh gave a blow with his spear on the right elbow and left upper arm of Jarnail Singh. Surinder Singh gave a blow with his gandasi from its blunt side on the head of Jarnail Singh and second blow was given thrust wise in chest. Karam Singh had also given a blow with his spear above his left eye. Ram Singh gave a blow with his spear on the back side of the left leg of Karnail Singh. Gurdial Singh gave a blow with his spear on his left arm and the second blow was given by him dang wise on his right leg. Bachan Singh and Pala Singh had attacked Harpal Singh. The former accused had given a blow with his stick on his shoulder whereas the latter gave a blow with his safajang on his right leg. Ram Singh gave a blow with his spear on the left flank of Harbans Singh, as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, the accused gave him more blows with their respective weapons. On receipt of injuries he became unconscious at the spot. After causing these injuries, Karam Singh, Mehar Singh, Gurdial Singh, Bachan Singh, Ram Singh, Karnail Singh, Sakandar Singh and Pala Singh, had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Injured were shifted to the Primary Health Centre, Dudhan Sadhan. Injured were medico-legally examined by the doctor. Regarding the admission of injured intimation was sent to the concerned police station and on receipt of information police party had gone to P.H.C. Dudhan Sadhan. Keeping in view the serious condition of Harbans Singh, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. ASI Sukhdarshan Singh, had gone to Rajindra Hospital Patiala and gave an application to enquire about the fitness of Harbans Singh to make statement. Harbans Singh was declared unfit to make the statement. On 10.7.1993, the Investigating Officer, had gone to P.H.C. Dudhan Sadhan and copies of the MLRs of Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh were handed over to him. After that he had gone to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and after obtaining CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -7- opinion from the doctor, had recorded the statement of Harbans Singh. After making endorsement Ex.PM/1 on the same, the statement was sent to the police station on basis of which FIR was recorded.
The Investigating Officer had gone to the spot and after inspecting the same rough site plan was prepared. In view of the application moved on behalf of Harbans Singh injured, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had directed the Medical Superintendent, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to medico-legally examine Harbans Singh. He was medico-legally examined by Dr. Sukcharan Singh Brar and five injuries were noticed on the person of Harbans Singh. Accused were arrested. Weapons of offence were recovered and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charged under Sections 307/324/326/149 and 148 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined injured namely Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh. All injured on oath stated that they were present in their fields and were reconstructing the water channel, at about 8/8.30 a.m. Then accused fully armed with weapons came and caused injuries to them. PW-1 Dr. Sukhcharan Singh, PW-2 Dr. Pawan Singhania, PW-3-Dr. Bir Kamal Singh Pannu, PW-4 Dr. Vikas Arora and PW-5 Dr. Vidhur Bhalla, have stated on oath that Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh, with injuries on their person came to the hospital. All the injured were medico-legally examined. Number of injuries were noticed on the person of complainant party. PW-9 Sukhdarshan Singh, ASI is the Investigating Officer.
After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. The defence version of the the appellants-accused was CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -8- that on 8.7.1993, Ram Singh alongwith Pala Singh was present near their bore. At about 9.00 a.m. Ram Singh directed Pala Singh to cut the green fodder. In the meanwhile, Jarnail Singh armed with gandasi and having a spade on his shoulder, Harbans Singh armed with a gandasi and have a spade on his shoulder, Harpal Singh having one spear and a spade in his hand and Gulzar Singh armed with a stick were found present on the spot. They starTed digging water course in their fields. Ram Singh had gone to prevent them from doing so. Several attempts were made to prevent the complainant party from constructing the water course but they did not care. Harpal Singh wanted to hit Ram Singh with his spear but he went on side and that spear hit Harbans Singh, who was standing near Ram Singh. Jarnail Singh, gave a blow with his gandasa which hit near the left ear of Ram Singh. Gulzar Singh gave a blow with soti on his left leg and second blow was given by him with that soti on his right shoulder. In the meantime, Bachan Singh grappled with Jarnail Singh accused and snatched gandasi from him. He started moving the same in the air in order to rescue them and in that process the complainant party received injuries. Ram Singh was also medico- legally examined.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for accused and from the perusal of the evidence on file, the appellants were convicted and sentenced vide the order aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, complainant and the learned State counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the occurrence is dated 9.7.1993. The parties have effected compromise. In view of the compromise the Criminal Revision No.1058 of 1998 filed by the injured was dismissed as withdrawn. Appellant namely Karnail CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -9- Singh remained in custody for about 1 month 24 days, Gurdial Singh 1 month 24 days, Bachan Singh 1 month 7 days, Sikandar Singh 1 month 7 days, Karam Singh 28 days, Mehar Singh 28 days, Pala Singh 1 month 7 days and Ram Singh 1 month 7 days. The impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Learned counsel for the appellants states that a lenient view be taken as per compromise.
Learned counsel for the complainant states that the parties have effected compromise. Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence stands dismissed as withdrawn. No objection, if lenient view is taken.
Learned State counsel argued that the parties have effected compromise and in view of the same the present appeal be disposed of.
Admittedly, the appellants had caused injuries to Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh. All the injured were medico- legally examined. Doctors had not stated a word that injuries noticed on the person of Harbans Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harpal Singh were self- suffered or self-inflicted. Injured were medico-legally examined by the doctors. So in view of the statements of eye witnesses and the injured, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized. No reason to differ with the opinion of the trial Court. The judgment on the point of conviction is upheld.
Written compromise produced in the Court and the same is ordered to be taken on record. The occurrence is dated 9.7.1993. The appellants are the first offenders. There was no previous enmity between the parties. Land of the complainant adjoins the land of the appellants. The appellants would become hardcore criminals, if sent to jail. As per compromise there is no apprehension of further litigation amongst the parties.
Keeping in view the facts of the case, the appellants are CRA No. 675-SB of 1998 -10- ordered to undergo imprisonment as already undergone ( Karnail Singh 1 month 24 days, Gurdial Singh 1 month 24 days, Bachan Singh 1 month 7 days, Sikandar Singh 1 month 7 days, Karam Singh 28 days, Mehar Singh 28 days, Pala Singh 1 month 7 days and Ram Singh 1 month 7 days) but the fine is maintained.
For the reasons recorded above the appeal without any merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
July 29, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE