Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar @ Sanju And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 July, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 25, 2014
Ram Kumar @ Sanju and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 30.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324, both read with Section 34, IPC, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that in view of the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below, he does not intend to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, however, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is on higher side. He Kapoor Prashant 2014.07.30 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 2
further submits that in view of the facts that the petitioners are first offenders; they are daily wagers; each one of them has already suffered incarceration for more than 8½ months; the injuries received by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mam Chand and Satish Kumar, have healed and they are leading their normal life, the petitioners deserve to be dealt with leniently. They may be released on probation or should be let off after reducing their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by each one of them.
3. Learned counsel for the State has very fairly conceded that none of the petitioners is a previous convict and each one of them has suffered incarceration for more than eight months. In support of his contention, he has placed on record the affidavits of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners. He, however, submits that if the substantive sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period undergone by each one of them, then they should be ordered to pay compensation to the injured persons in view of the provisions contained in Section 357, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
Kapoor Prashant 2014.07.30 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 3
5. At the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the injured persons, Mam Chand and Satish Kumar, were ordered to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide order dated 19.12.2013. As per the office report, both of them were served through their daughter and sister, respectively, but they have failed to appear before this Court.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the whole material available on record has been re-scanned.
7. The petitioners were charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC, by the learned Trial Court. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined ASI Kirpal Singh as PW1, who was the investigating officer and after completion of the investigation he had entrusted the police file to the Station House Officer/Inspector Umed Singh for presentation of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 3-Satish Kumar (PW2) is injured and he had witnessed the occurrence. He fully proved the prosecution case. ASI Som Parkash (PW3) had registered the formal FIR (Ex.PW3/A) after receipt of the police memo from ASI Kirpal Singh (PW1). Dr. Charanjeet Singh (PW4) Kapoor Prashant 2014.07.30 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 4
had radiologically examined respondent No. 2/injured Mam Chand. However, he did not find any grievous injury on the person of Mam Chand. He also radiologically examined respondent No. 3/injured Satish Kumar (PW2) and found a fracture of 'PNS'. Mam Chand (PW5) is also an injured and he too witnessed the whole occurrence and fully supported the prosecution version. Dr. Saminder Panchal (PW6) had medico- legally examined Mam Chand (PW5) and Satish Kumar (PW2).
8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners, in compliance of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence. No evidence in defence was led.
9. From perusal of the material available on record and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of Satish Kumar (PW2) and Mam Chand (PW5), it is clearly made out that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34, IPC, and as such, both the learned Courts below have rightly returned the verdict of guilt against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken the right stand in not challenging the conviction of the petitioners.
Kapoor Prashant 2014.07.30 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 5
10. Each one of the petitioners was ordered to undergo the following sentences of imprisonment by the learned Courts below:-
Under Section Sentence Fine In Default 323 read with S.I. for 6 months `300/- S.I. for 15 days Section 34, IPC 325 read with S.I. for 1 year `500/- S.I. 1 month Section 34, IPC Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
11. Concededly, the petitioners are not the previous convicts. The quarrel had originated on account of electric load shedding. There was no previous enmity between the petitioners and the injured persons. They reside in the same locality. Out of the maximum awarded sentence of imprisonment of one year, each petitioner has suffered incarceration for 8 months and 24 days as on date. It has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are daily wagers. The maximum sentence prescribed under Section 325, IPC, is for seven years while under Section 323, IPC, it is one year.
12. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners, namely, Ram Kumar @ Sanju, Ravinder Kumar @ Gugga and Rajeev @ Kapoor Prashant 2014.07.30 10:36 I attest to the accuracy of this order.
CRR-3995-2013 (O&M) 6
Jitender @ Kaka, is reduced to the period already undergone by them, i.e. 8 months and 24 days, whereas the amount of fine shall remain unaltered; besides each one of them is burdened to deposit a sum of `10,000/- (`10,000/- X 3 = `30,000/-) as compensation within two months of their release from the jail, which shall be disbursed to both the injured persons, namely, Mam Chand and Satish Kumar (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) in equal share, i.e. `15,000/- each, by the learned Trial Court after issuing notice to them in accordance with the settled norms.
13. In case the petitioner(s) fails to deposit the above said amount of compensation within the stipulated period, then the defaulting petitioner shall suffer the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court.
14. All the three petitioners be set at liberty at once, if not required to be in custody in any other case.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
July 25, 2014 JUDGE
Pkapoor
Kapoor Prashant
2014.07.30 10:36
I attest to the accuracy
of this order.