Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bir Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 23 January, 2014
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : January 23, 2014
Bir Singh and others
.....Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate
for the complainant.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The appellants, alongwith Krishan and Ram Phal were tried for offences under Sections 148/149/307/325/323/506 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Vide judgment and order dated 11/12.12.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani acquitted Krishan and Ram Phal for the offences for which they stood charged. All the appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were further convicted under Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -2- Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. They were also convicted under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Finally, they were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. In addition, appellant Bir Singh was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentences.
According to the prosecution, on 10.4.1993 at about 10.30/11.00 a.m., complainant Dharam Singh, alongwith his brothers Ajmer Singh and Pirthi Singh, son Randhir Singh, nephew Rajesh, wife Roshni and brother's wife Bhanmati, was present in their Delawala field and cutting crop. At that time, a truck came from the side of village Biran and stopped near the culvert of minor. Risal Singh accused and his sons Mohinder, Kanhu, Chhattar Singh, Mohar Singh and Bir Singh and one Rajesh, Sunar, alongwith 15/20 persons got down from the truck Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -3- and came towards the fields where the complainant party was present. Accused Risal Singh and his sons Mohinder Singh and Bir Singh were armed with .12 bore guns each, whereas the other accused were armed with lathies, jellies and kulharies. Accused Risal Singh opened fire with his gun. The complainant party became perturbed and started running towards their Rivanwala field. When they reached near the field of Manphul, then Risal Singh accused fired one more shot on the person of Rajesh and Roshni, who received injuries on their legs. All the accused surrounded the complainant party. Accused Mohinder Singh fired a shot from his .12 bore gun hitting the complainant on his right thigh due to which he fell down. Accused Chhattar and Kanhu opened an attack upon the complainant with the help of lathi and kulhari, whereafter, accused Bir Singh fired at Randhir Singh, who received pellet injuries on his mouth and fore-head. As a result, Randhir Singh fell down. Accused also caused injuries to Pirthi Singh, Bhanmati and Gulab Singh. The alarm raised by the complainant party attracted the persons working in the neighbouring fields and on seeing them coming, the accused party fled away from the spot in the same truck in which they had arrived.
On the basis of statement made by complainant Dharam Singh on the lines stated above, FIR No. 127 dated 10.4.1993 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. During Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -4- its investigation, the injured on the complainant side were medico- legally examined. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Subsequent thereto, the appellants and the two accused, who have already been acquitted, were charged, as mentioned above.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, namely, PW1 Dr. K.K. Garg, PW2 Dr.Meena Barwar, PW3 Record-Keeper Dharam Pal, PW4 Dr.S.C.Batra, PW5 Constable Jai Singh, PW6 complainant/injured Dharam Singh, PW7 injured Pirthi Singh, PW8 Constable Raj Pal, PW9 Inspector Thawar Singh, PW10 Head Constable Suraj Bhan, PW11 Registration Clerk Sham Sunder, PW12 Dr. D.S.Dangi, PW13 SI Rameshwar Kumar, PW14 Dr. S.N. Sharma, PW15 SI Yaad Ram, PW16 SI Subhash Chander, PW17 Mukhtiar Singh, Kanungo, PW18 Dr. Asha Goyal, PW19 Dr. A.K.Dalal, PW20 Dr. Sunita Gupta, PW21 Dr. S.K.Anand and PW22 Investigating Officer Hoshiar Singh.
After the prosecution closed its evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that they were innocent. They had purchased some agricultural land from Phool Chand in the year 1991 and also got possession of the same in December, 1992 Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -5- under the orders of the Court. The accused had sown crops and in order to harvest the same, they alongwith others had gone to the field where the complainant party alongwith 8/10 persons was found present harvesting the crop. An occurrence ensued in which Rishal Singh, Kanhu and Mohinder accused received injuries. In support of their case, the accused examined five witnesses, namely, DW1 Ranbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar, DW2 Bhagat Singh, Ahlmad, DW3 Gurnpal Singh, Kanungo, DW4 Patwari Dinesh Kumar and DW5 Numberdar Pehlad Rai.
As mentioned above, the trial Court acquitted Krishan and Ram Phal co-accused of the appellants whereas the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.
It may not be out of place to mention here that Risal Singh and Kanhu appellants have since died and their death certificates placed on the record. In view of the said fact, learned counsel for the appellants had prayed for disposing of their appeal as having abated. Vide order dated 15.11.2010, the said request was accepted and the appeal of Risal Singh and Kanhu appellants was disposed of as having abated. Further, even Mohinder Singh appellant has now died on 8.4.2011 and in that regard, death certificate has been produced by the State counsel, which is taken on record. In view of the said fact, learned counsel for the appellants states that with the death of Mohinder Singh, the Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -6- present appeal qua him also abates and be disposed of as such. Keeping in view the stand taken by learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal of appellant Mohinder Singh is also disposed of as having abated.
The most relevant issue in the case is as to which party was the aggressor. After going through the evidence available on the record and the various documents, the trial Court held that it was the accused party which was the aggressor and had opened an attack upon the complainant party by taking law in their own hands for which they had no right to do so. Learned counsel for the surviving appellants fairly concedes that he is not in a position to dislodge the aforementioned findings arrived at by the trial Court.
This court has gone through the testimonies of PW6 complainant Dharam Singh, PW7 Pirthi Singh and find that the statements made by them are worthy of reliance. The defence could not bring any material on the record to show that they had deposed falsely. Their evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence consisting of the testimonies of PW1 Dr. K.K. Garg, PW2 Dr. Meena Barwar, PW3 Record-Keeper Dharm Pal, PW4 Dr. S.C. Batra, PW12 Dr. D.S. Dangi, PW14 Dr. S.N. Sharma, PW18 Dr. Asha Goyal, PW19 Dr. A.K. Dalal, PW20 Dr. Sunita Gupta and PW21 Dr. S.K. Anand.
The only issue which survives for consideration in now Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -7- is the quantum of sentence. Chhattar Singh and Mohar Singh appellants were not armed with any fire arm at the time of the occurrence. They were said to be carrying lathi and kulhari. On the other hand, it was Bir Singh-appellant who had taken active part in the occurrence by firing from his gun at Randhir Singh and, that too, from a close range. As a result Randhir Singh remained unconscious for a period of about 20 days as the injury received by him on his head had affected his brain. The injuries caused by Bir Singh appellant were, thus, dangerous to life and, accordingly, he cannot escape liability from the substantive offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Court is, however, slightly excessive. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had taken place on 10.4.1993 and ever since then appellant Bir Singh on the one hand and appellants Chhattar Singh and Mohar Singh on the other have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution all this while and, that Chhater Singh and Mohar Singh appellants have already undergone about 2½ months, out of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence of Bir Singh appellant under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC is reduced from seven years to five years. Similarly, the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon Chhattar Singh and Mohar Singh appellants on all the counts, can be reduced to that Criminal Appeal No.S-1065-SB of 1998 -8- already undergone by them.
Resultantly, the conviction of the surviving appellants, namely, Bir Singh, Chhattar Singh and Mohar Singh, as recorded by the Courts below is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Bir Singh for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, whereas his sentence of imprisonment for the remaining offences is maintained. The sentences of imprisonment of Chhattar Singh and Mohar Singh appellants on all the counts is reduced to that already undergone by them. The sentences of fine, alongwith its default clauses in respect of the surviving appellants, are maintained. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
January 23, 2014 JUDGE
satish
Satish Kumar
2014.01.27 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document