Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 30 November, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001
Date of Decision : November 30, 2010
Joginder Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Kundan Lal Chaudhary, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
T.P.S. Mann, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows :-
Name of Offence Sentence Fine In the appellant (Rs.) default Joginder : U/s 148 IPC : RI for 2 years - - Singh U/s 307/149 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 326 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -2- U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - Jarnail Singh : U/s 148 IPC : RI for 2 years : - : - U/s 307/149 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 325 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -3- U/s 323 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : : Gurbachan : U/s 148 IPC : RI for 2 years : - : - Singh U/s 307/149 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - Balkar Singh : U/s 148 IPC : RI for 2 years : - : - U/s 307/149 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -4- U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - Chhindi : U/s 148 IPC : RI for 2 years : - : - U/s 307 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326/149 : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -5- U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - Mangal Singh : 148 IPC : RI for 2 years : - : - U/s 307/149 IPC : RI for 7 years : 2,000/- : RI for 1 year U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 326/149 IPC : RI for 3 years : 1,000/- : RI for 6 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 323 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 325/149 IPC : RI for 2 years : 500/- : RI for 3 months U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323/149 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : - U/s 324/149 IPC : RI for 1 year : - : - U/s 323 IPC : RI for 6 months : - : -
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution, as set up in the Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -6- statement Ex.PJ made by injured Balkar Singh before the police, was that on 11.7.1996, his brother Nirmal Singh and mother Darshan Kaur were going to Sultanpur Lodhi on a scooter. At about 7.00 P.M., when they reached near the house of one Pal Singh, then Joginder Singh accused armed with a gandasi, Sukhwinder Singh with a kirpan, Jarnail Singh with a sua, Gurbachan Singh with a barchhi, Balkar Singh with a gandasi, Chhindi with a kirpan and Mangal Singh with a dang came out of the sugarcane field of Joginder Singh accused. A lalkara was raised by Chhindi accused to catch hold of Nirmal Singh as his buffalo had damaged the paddy crop of her relative. Joginder Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of Nirmal Singh. As a result, he fell down from the scooter. Mangal Singh gave three dang blows hitting Nirmal Singh on his left arm and leg. Darshan Kaur tried to rescue her son Nirmal Singh by coming forward but was given two gandasi blows by Joginder Singh on her right hand. Jarnail Singh gave a sua blow to Darshan Kaur on her right hand and wrist. On seeing the occurrence, complainant Balkar Singh and his brothers Baldev Singh and Gulzar Singh went running from their dera to the spot. Joginder Singh accused gave a gandasi blow to Gulzar Singh hitting him at three places on his right hand. Mangal Singh caused two dang blows to him on his right leg. Jarnail Singh caused a sua blow to Gulzar Singh on his head. Chhindi gave a kirpan blow on the head of Baldev Singh. Balkar Singh accused gave two gandasi blows to Baldev Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -7- Singh on his right arm and right ankle. Balkar Singh wielded the gandasi from its reverse side hitting Baldev Singh on his right arm. Joginder Singh inflicted two gandasi blows to Balkar Singh on his hands. Chhindi accused gave two kirpan blows on both the legs of Balkar Singh. Gurbachan Singh gave two blows with barchhi to Balkar Singh hitting him on his right thigh and left hand. Joginder Singh gave two more injuries with the gandasi hitting Balkar Singh on his left thigh and right arm. As a result, Balkar Singh also fell down. While he was lying on the ground, he was caused more injuries by the accused. An alarm was raised, which attracted Resham Singh and Bakhshish Singh to the spot, who rescued the injured from the accused.
According to the prosecution, the motive for the occurrence was that 2/3 days earlier, the buffalo of complainant Balkar Singh had entered the paddy field of the accused, regarding which the accused convened a Panchayat. Despite the same, the accused did not agree to the decision rendered by the Panchayat, and went ahead to inflict injuries to the complainant party.
All the injured were removed to the hospital where they were medically examined. Upon receipt of the copies of the MLRs, ASI Dilbagh Singh of Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Balkar Singh, on the basis of which, FIR No.83 dated 12.7.1996 under Sections 326/325/324/323/149/148 IPC was registered. Later on, two of Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -8- the injuries found on the person of Baldev Singh were found dangerous to life. Accordingly, offence under Section 307 IPC was also added to the heading of the FIR.
During investigation of the case, ASI Dilbagh Singh visited the spot and prepared rough site plan. He arrested the accused and pursuant to their respective disclosure statements, recovered the weapons used by them in inflicting injuries upon the complainant party.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the accused were charged for offences under Sections 148, 307/ 326/325/324/323/149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Prem Parkash, PW2 Balkar Singh, PW3 Nirmal Singh, PW4 Gulzar Singh, PW5 Baldev Singh, PW6 Darshan Kaur, PW7 Inspector Chain Singh, PW8 ASI Dilbagh Singh and PW9 Lakhwinder Singh.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. Mangal Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Jarnail Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Chhindi stated that they were not present at the spot. According to Joginder Singh accused, the buffalo of Balkar Singh had damaged his paddy crop and also the barbed wire, regarding which he informed complainant Balkar Singh, who felt annoyed. Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -9- The complainant party threatened to teach them a lesson and caused injuries. At that time, Balkar Singh accused was also with him. Both of them denied having caused injuries to the complainant party. According to Joginder Singh accused, the complainant party might have received injuries from him and his companions in their self defence whereas according to Balkar Singh accused, he did not cause any injury to any of the PWs.
In defence, the accused produced DW1 Dr. Barinder Gill, who testified that he had reviewed the skigram of Balkar Singh accused and found fracture of shaft of right tibia and there was no bony injury on skull, left hand and the chest. The accused also produced DW2 Joginder Singh, one of the accused, in support of their defence plea. It may also be mentioned here that during cross-examination of PW1 Dr. Prem Parkash, the accused brought evidence regarding the medical examination of Balkar Singh, Joginder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh accused on 12.7.1996. Balkar Singh accused was found to be having four injuries on his person. Out of them, injury No.2 was declared as grievous as the x-ray showed fracture of right tibia. Four injuries were found on the person of Joginder Singh accused, and two on the person of Sukhwinder Singh accused.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court convicted the appellants, as mentioned above. However, Sukhwinder Singh accused was acquitted of the charges against Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -10- him on the ground that apart from PW4 Gulzar Singh, no other witness had attributed any injury to him and even the solitary injury attributed to him on the left leg of PW4 Gulzar Singh was not found during his medical examination.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR had been lodged after a delay of about 20 hours of the occurrence and nothing had been brought on record by the prosecution to explain the same. It has also been submitted that grievous and serious injuries were found on the persons of the accused but they were not explained by the prosecution. Regarding the injuries found on the accused, even a cross complaint was instituted against the complainant party. It has also been submitted that the offences, as alleged by the prosecution, were not made out. There was no categorical opinion given by the doctor that injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Baldev Singh were dangerous to life. Even the injuries were declared grievous without subjecting them to x-ray examination, so much so even extent of cut had not been given. Finally, it is submitted that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 14 years and as they have suffered enough, their sentences of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by them.
Learned State counsel, while assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the delay in lodging of the FIR had been properly explained by the Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -11- prosecution. Regarding injuries on the persons of the accused, the plea is that these injuries had been self suffered by the accused to come up with a false version of having been assaulted by the complainant party and under these circumstances, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on account of non- explanation of those injuries. It has also been submitted that the criminal complaint filed by the accused stands dismissed by the trial Court and the same has not been challenged by the accused by filing any appeal. Regarding the nature of offence, it is submitted that two of the injuries found on the person of Baldev Singh were declared dangerous to life. Besides, the injuries were grievous in nature as the doctor had found fractures under those injuries. Finally, it is submitted that the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants are commensurate with the nature of injuries inflicted by them.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
The occurrence in question had taken place on 11.7.1996 at 7.00 P.M. in the area of village Taraf Hazi Kothe wherein complainant Balkar Singh, his brothers Baldev Singh, Gulzar Singh and Nirmal Singh and their mother Darshan Kaur received injuries. Immediately, after the occurrence, they were removed to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi where they were medically examined between 10.00 P.M. and 11.15 P.M. PW Balkar Singh was found to be having 14 injuries on his person. Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -12- Injuries No.1 and 2 were declared grievous in nature as bones underneath were found cut. Gulzar Singh PW had six injuries on his person. Injuries No.1 and 2 were declared grievous in nature. Similarly, four injuries were found on the person of Baldev Singh. Injuries No.1, 2 and 3 were declared grievous in nature. Later on, injuries No.1 and 2 were also declared as dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. PW Darshan Kaur, was found to have suffered four injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was declared as grievous while the remaining were simple in nature. PW Nirmal Singh was found to have suffered four injuries, which were simple in nature. Upon receipt of the medico-legal reports of the five injured, PW8 ASI Dilbagh Singh rushed from Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi to the hospital where he moved application Ex.PH, before the doctor, to find out as to whether the injured were fit to make statement or not. Vide endorsement Ex.PH/1 made on 12.7.1996 at 9.15 A.M., the doctor declared all the injured fit to make statements. ASI Dilbagh Singh then recorded statement Ex.PJ of Balkar Singh PW. As the statement revealed commission of offences under Sections 326/325/324/323/149/148 IPC, ASI, Dilbagh Singh made his endorsement Ex.PJ/1 on 12.7.1996 at 2.15 P.M. and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of criminal case. Pursuant thereto, FIR Ex.PJ/2 came to be recorded at the Police Station on the same day at 2.30 P.M. The entire family of PW Darshan Kaur, i.e. she herself Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -13- and her four sons, Balkar Singh, Baldev Singh, Gulzar Singh and Nirmal Singh lay admitted in Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi on account of injuries received by them. All of them were medically examined during the night. None of them was in a position to go to the Police Station for lodging the report. Besides, the doctor, who had medically examined them had sent necessary intimation to the Police Station and copies of the medico-legal reports. Pursuant to the same, ASI Dilbagh Singh reached the hospital and after obtaining opinion from the doctor regarding the fitness of the injured, recorded statement of Balkar Singh and on its basis, FIR was registered. There was, thus, no inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Whatever delay occurred, had been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
It is true that during cross-examination, PW1 Dr. Prem Parkash deposed that he had medically examined Balkar Singh accused on 12.7.1996 at 1.30 A.M., Joginder Singh accused at 1.45 A.M and Sukhwinder Singh accused at 2.00 A.M. and found 4, 4 and 2 injuries, respectively, on their persons and later on, injury No.2 on the person of Balkar Singh accused was declared grievous in nature as the x-ray showed fracture of right tibia but nature of those injuries was such that they could be the result of a friendly hand or self suffered. During re-examination, PW1 Dr.Prem Parkash stated that he could not rule out the possibility regarding injuries on the person of Joginder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh accused being self suffered or having been Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -14- caused by a friendly hand. He also did not rule out the possibility of injuries No.2 3, and 4 on the person of Balkar Singh accused being the result of friendly hand and self suffered as all these injuries were on the accessible parts of the body. Similarly, injury No.1 on the person of Balkar Singh could be the result of a fall if struck against a sharp edged weapon/object. Despite the above evidence, which emerged during the re-examination of PW1 Dr.Prem Parkash, the defence did not opt to ask any further question so as to establish that the three accused had received injuries in the occurrence. This assumes significance as though the accused filed a private criminal complaint against the complainant party for causing injuries to them yet the said complaint ended in smoke as soon after the passing of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the criminal complaint was dismissed by the trial Court and no appeal had been filed by the accused against the said decision. As such, no benefit can be extended to the accused on account of non- explanation of injuries found on their persons.
Injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of PW Baldev Singh were initially declared as grievous in nature as the doctor had found bones underneath those injuries as fractured. On 18.7.1996, Dr. Prem Parkash vide his report Ex.PD declared that those injuries together could have been dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. Apparently, no specific or categorical opinion had been given by the doctor declaring injuries No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -15- 2 as dangerous to life. Only a vague opinion was given that the two injuries together could have been dangerous to life. Under these circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the conviction of appellant Chhindi for offence under Section 307 IPC and of remaining appellants under Sections 307/149 IPC. Instead, for causing injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Baldev Singh, Chhindi appellant can be made liable under Section 326 IPC and the remaining appellants under Sections 326/149 IPC.
The Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by the defence that the injuries found on the persons of the complainant party had been declared grievous without subjecting them to x-ray examination or even not finding out the extent of cut. From the testimony of PW1 Dr. Prem Parkash, it is clearly discernible that he had found injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Balkar Singh PW, injuries No.1 and 2 on the person of Gulzar Singh PW and injuries No.1, 2 and 3 on the person of Baldev Singh PW to be grievous as he had found bones underneath those injuries cut. The doctor did not find any necessity of ordering x-ray examination of the aforementioned injuries to confirm the factum of fractures as he was satisfied that bone underneath them were cut. Regarding other injuries for which he was not sure as to whether they were having cuts underneath them or not, he advised x-ray and on receipt of the same declared them simple in nature. Even during his cross-examination, the defence did not suggest that he had wrongly declared two Injuries Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -16- on the person of Balkar Singh PW, two on the person of Gulzar Singh PW and three on the person of Baldev Singh PW as grievous.
The occurrence had taken place more than 14 years back. There was no enmity between the parties earlier to the occurrence in question. Present occurrence had erupted on account of the buffalo belonging to Nirmal Singh PW entering the field of the accused and damaging the paddy crop. The main role in the entire accident was attributed to Chhindi appellant, a woman, who was about 74 years of age at the time of her trial. As per custody certificates brought on record by learned State counsel, Chhindi appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of 1 year 1 month and 10 days, Gurbachan Singh and Balkar Singh appellants have undergone more than 1 year and 11 months each, Joginder Singh has undergone 1 year 7 months and 23 days, Jarnail Singh has undergone 1 year 4 months and 8 days while Mangal Singh has undergone 5 months and 7 days.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, fine of Rs.2,000/- earlier imposed upon the appellants for the charge under Section 307 IPC can be Criminal Appeal No.S-928-SB of 2001 -17- enhanced to Rs.15,000/- so as to compensate the complainant party.
Resultantly, conviction of Chhindi appellant under Section 307 IPC is altered to the one under Section 326 IPC whereas of the remaining appellants under Sections 307/149 IPC to Sections 326/149 IPC. They are, however, sentenced to a period already undergone by them. They shall, however, pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- each as fine and in default thereof, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years. The conviction of all the appellants under Sections 148,326/325/324/323/149 IPC, as awarded by the trial Court is maintained. However, the sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. The sentences of fine, alongwith their default clauses, are maintained. The entire amount of fine now imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Sections 326 and 326/149 IPC shall be disbursed to the injured persons as compensation in equal shares.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
November 30, 2010 JUDGE
satish.