Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malook Singh And Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 2010
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:2.3.2010
Malook Singh and Amrik Singh .....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Argued by: Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Ajaib Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(Oral)
Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.5.1999, whereby appellant-Amrik Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, whereas appellant-Malook Singh was convicted and sentenced in the same terms and manner under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Judge.
2. The crux of the prosecution version and evidence, unfolded during the trial, are that on 20.10.1995 at about 7 P.M., complainant-PW4 Surjit Singh alongwith his brother (PW5) Gurmit Singh was going from his house to their cattle shed (Haveli). As soon as, they came out of their house in the street, in the meantime, the appellants, armed with their respective spears, also reached at the spot (street). Thereafter, appellant Malook Singh raised a lalkara that he (complainant) be not allowed to escape and appellant Amrik Singh caused injury on his abdomen with spear. On receipt of injury, PW4 felled on the ground. On raising noise/alarm by PW5 "Maar Ta Maar Ta", both the appellants managed to escape from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons. PW5 took Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 2 PW4 in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Malout. PW1 Dr. R.K.Goria medico legally examined PW4 on 21.10.1995 at 3.05 A.M., from where, he was referred to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where he was admitted and operated upon.
3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that in the wake of wireless message, with regard to admission of PW4 in the Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, (PW8) SI Atma Singh alongwith PHG Makhan Singh reached and having collected the MLR (Ex.PA) from the Police Station Kotwali, then he went to the hospital. PW8 moved an application (Ex.PM), on which, PW1, vide his opinion (Ex.PM/1), opined that the injured was fit to make the statement. Thereafter, PW8 recorded the statement (Ex.PH) of PW1, which was read over and explained to him and he (PW1) signed the same in token of its correctness. PW8 made his endorsement (Ex.PH/1) and sent the same to the Police Station Sadar Malout for registration of case through PHG Makhan Singh, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PH/2) was recorded by (PW6) MHC Amrik Singh, whose signatures, he identified. Then PW8 inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PN) with its correct marginal notes and recorded the statement of PW5 as well.
4. Levelling a variety of allegations in all, according to the prosecution, that on 20.10.1995 at about 7 P.M., the appellant Malook Singh raised a lalkara, while appellant Amrik Singh caused a spear injury in the abdomen of PW4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PH) of PW4, the present case was registered against them, vide FIR No.135 dated 21.10.1995 (Ex.PH/2), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Malout, in the manner indicated here-in-above.
5. After the completion of the investigation, final police report/challan as envisaged under section 173 Cr.PC was submitted against the appellants to face trial for the aforesaid offences. Since, the case was triable by the court of Sessions, so, it was committed for trial by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, vide his commitment order dated 3.1.1996. Consequently, they Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 3 appeared before the Court of Session in pursuance of commitment of the case.
6. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Judge framed the substantive charges under Section 307 IPC against appellant-Amrik Singh and under Section 307/34 IPC against appellant-Malook Singh, vide order dated 23.1.1996. As they did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, examined PW1 Dr.R.K.Goria, who medico legally examined PW4, vide MLR (Ex.PA) and pictorial diagram, showing the seat of injury, is Ex.PA/1 on 21.10.1995 at 3.05 A.M. and found the following injury:-
"An elliptical wound with clean cut margins 3 cm x 0.7 cm (depth not brobed) on the right side and front of abdomen in the right iliac region 8 cm from the umbilicus. Wound was bleeding and obliquely placed."
According to PW1, the kind of weapon was sharp edged and pointed. The duration of injury was within 12 hours. It was kept under observation for surgeon's opinion. PW1 declared the injury, vide his report (Ex.PB) on the person of PW4 as "dangerous to life", on the basis of surgeon's opinion of (PW2) Dr.Rajinder Singh Khurmi. PW1 also proved the supplementary report (Ex.PC) sent by the SHO of Police Station Kotwali for sending the blood stained trouser (pant) bearing corresponding cut to the Investigating Officer. He also proved the police request (Ex.PD) and endorsement on it (Ex.PD/1).
8. The next to note is the testimony of PW2 Dr.Rajinder Singh Khurmi, who has deposed that the operation of exploratory laparotomy was done under spinal anesthesia and the operation notes are mentioned at page 6 of Bed Head Ticket (Ex.PE) by Registrar Dr.S.P.Singla, whose signatures and writing, he identified. PW2 has also proved the report of surgical opinion (Ex.PF).
9. PW3 Ajit Sharma, Draftsman is a formal witness, who correctly prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PG) on 19.11.1995 of the place of occurrence at the instance of PW5.
10. Sequelly, PW6 HC Amrik Singh, PW9 HC Karamjit Singh and PW10 Constable Sushil Kumar are the formal witnesses, who have only Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 4 tendered into evidence their affidavits (Ex.PC, Ex.PO and Ex.PP) respectively.
11. The main complainant/injured eye witness Surjit Singh while appearing as PW4 has stated in the following manner:-
"On 20.10.1995, at about 7.00 p.m. I alongwith my brother Gurmit Singh was going towards our haveli from our house. I was two karams ahead to my brother. Accused present in the court were standing in the way. Malook Singh accused raised lalkara that Surjit Singh i.e. I be not allowed to go scot free. Both the accused were armed with barchha. Accused Malook Singh is father of Amrik Singh. Accused Amrik Singh then gave barchha blow in my abdomen towards right side. I fell down on the ground and also raised alarm. My brother-Gurmit Singh also raised raula. Then I became unconscious. Accused then managed to escape with their respective weapons. I was taken to Civil Hospital Malout in a van. Civil Hospital Malout then referred me to Medical College, Faridkot where I was medically examined. Police came in the hospital on the following morning at about 11.00 a.m. and recorded my statement which is Ex.PH which was signed by me after admitting the contents as correct.
The reason behind the occurrence was that we had purchased land measuring five marlas from Inder Kaur which is situated in front of the house of the accused and the accused claim that land to be their. The accused were seen by me in the electric light which was on in our residence."
12. Likewise, PW5 another eye witness Gurmit Singh has also stated that on 20.10.1995 it was about 7.00 p.m. when he alongwith his brother (PW4) was going from their residential house to outer house. The accused were already present in the street. Accused Malook Singh raised lalkara that Surjit Singh be not allowed to go scot free. Thereafter, accused Amrik Singh gave a barchha blow, which was sustained by him in the abdomen in his right side. He (PW4) fell down after receipt of injury. He (PW5) raised alarm. Then, accused managed to escape with their respective weapons from the place of occurrence. Instead of reproducing the statement of PW5 in toto and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that narrating the sequence of events, both PW4 and PW5 have Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 5 corroborated the initial version of the prosecution on vital counts in this connection.
13. The last to note are the testimonies of of PW7 ASI Mangal Singh and PW8 SI Atma Singh, who have investigated the case. They testified the investigation carried out by them, in the manner already reproduced above. The learned Public Prosecutor has also tendered into evidence the report (Ex.PX) of Forensic Science Laboratory and closed the evidence of the prosecution.
14. After the close of the prosecution case, statements of the appellants were recorded. The entire incriminating evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence in its totality and pleaded false implication. Appellant Malook Singh set up the following defence plea, which was toed by appellant Amrik Singh as well :-
"I am innocent. Statement of the complainant is concocted. We have no relation with Inder Kaur. I was already in custody and Barchha was planted upon me. In the month of October, I was posted as Peon with Ziledar of Canal Department of Malout. The complainant party managed to get the medico-legal report and declared the injury dangerous on the false and wrong opinion of the doctor."
15. The appellants, in order to substantiate their defence plea, examined DW1 Gurjant Singh, Patwari Revenue, Circle Rajianwali Tehsil Abohar, who maintained that in the year 1995, he conducted the Nehari Girdawari of three villages, namely, Virk Khera, Alamwala and Jhurar. On 20.10.1995, he was having his temporary residence in village Jhurar. Malook Singh accused had met him in village Jhurar and told him that he (Malook Singh) had brought dasti summons for his service, vide which, he (DW1) was required to appear before the Deputy Collector Canals, Abohar. He remained for about one hour with him and then left for Malout. Malook Singh has been working as Sewadar in their Ziledar Office Malout.
16. The trial Judge, after taking into consideration the evidence on Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 6 record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as described here-in-above.
17. The appellants did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and filed the present appeal. That is how, the matter is placed before me.
18. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended with some amount of vehemence that as is clear from the statement of DW1 Gurjant Singh that appellant Malook Singh was present in village Jhurar at the relevant time, no injury was attributed to him except lalkara, so, he has been falsely implicated in this case. On the contrary, the learned State counsel has admitted that no doubt, no injury is assigned to appellant Malook Singh, but he urged that since he raised a lalkara, so he is liable to be convicted under sections 307/34 IPC and no interference is warranted in this respect.
19. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, to my mind, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has considerable force in this direction.
20. It is not a matter of dispute that appellant Malook Singh was vicariously charge sheeted with the aid of section 34 IPC, which postulates that "when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
21. Above being the legal position, now the core question, though important, that arises for determination at this stage is whether appellant-Malook Singh can be held guilty vicariously or not? As per prosecution version, although appellant-Malook Singh was armed with a spear, but he did not cause any injury either to PW4 or PW5. Only lalkara is attributed to him. There is evidence on record that civil litigation is pending between the complainant party on the one side and the accused party on the other side. The prosecution further claimed that when PW4 and PW5 reached the street, then the appellants were already present there. The occurrence originated at the spur of the moment and the solitary injury was caused by appellant Amrik Singh to PW4. As indicated earlier, Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 7 no role is attributed to appellant Malook Singh except lalkara. There was not a whisper in the statements of PW4 and PW5 that appellant Malook Singh shared the requisite common intention in any manner with main accused-Amrik Singh to commit the crime in question. Appellant-Malook Singh is none else but father of appellant-Amrik Singh. Therefore, the mere presence of Malook Singh at the place of occurrence is not proved and even otherwise his mere presence is not sufficient to infer that he actually shared the requisite common intention with his father Amrik Singh, particularly when it is not the case of the prosecution that appellants came to the spot with pre-planning and prior meeting of mind to commit the crime. So, under these circumstances, the possibility of false implication of appellant-Malook Singh cannot be ruled out, especially when DW1 has stated that he (Malook Singh) was present with him in village Jhurar. Therefore, to my mind, he deserves the benefit of reasonable doubt. Having extended the benefit of reasonable doubt, appellant-Malook Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge framed against him under sections 307/34 IPC for want of adequate evidence in this direction.
22. Be that as it may, as regards the participation of appellant Amrik Singh is concerned, there is more than sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the crime in question, as discussed here-in-above.
23. Above being the position of evidence on record, now adverting to the celebrated argument of the learned counsel for appellant Amrik Singh that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in the police station and also no explanation is forth coming on record as to why PW5 did not lodge the report on the same day, which, according to him, is fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard, the prosecution claimed that the occurrence took place at 7 P.M. on 20.10.1995. PW4 felled on the ground after receipt of injury and became unconscious. PW5 took him in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Malout. Immediately thereafter, PW1 referred the injured to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, keeping in view his condition where he was medico legally examined at 3.05 A.M., vide MLR (Ex.PA). PW8 reached the hospital. He moved an application (Ex.PM) and after getting medical opinion Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 8 (Ex.PM/1), he recorded the statement (Ex.PH) of PW4, made his endorsement (Ex.PH/1) and sent the same to the Police Station Sadar Malout at 11 A.M., which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PH/2). It means, the delay in lodging the FIR was duly explained in these circumstances.
24. No doubt, PW5 did not lodge the report to the police on the day of occurrence, but there is nothing in the statement of PW8 to indicate that he (PW5) had earlier met him. Even no specific suggestion was put to him in this respect. Moreover, the primary, paramount concern and natural human conduct of PW5 was to take the injured to the capable hospital and to arrange for his best medical treatment in order to save his life than to rush to police station to lodge the FIR. This is what PW5 has done. First of all, he took the injured to Civil Hospital, Malout and then to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot.
25. Therefore, taking into consideration the distances between the place of occurrence and Civil Hospital, Malout and from Civil Hospital, Malout to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and Police Station Sadar Malout and natural human conduct of PW5, to my mind, the delay stood duly explained. The prompt admission and medical examination of the injured in the hospital lends further corroboration to the prosecution version. Moreover, in injury case, mere delay for lodging the report to the police is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. That being so, the arguments that the delay remained unexplained and PW5 did not lodge the FIR pale into insignificance in this relevant connection. As is clear from the evidence on record, the delay in lodging the FIR has satisfactorily been explained, which is not per se fatal, specially when the case of the prosecution is otherwise supported by the injured/stamped eye witness PW4 and eye witness PW5 coupled with the medical evidence.
26. However, inviting the attention of the Court towards the cross- examination of PW5, wherein he has admitted that 15/20 persons were collected after he raised alarm, the submission of the learned counsel that non- examination of any of them, renders the prosecution story doubtful, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. It is no body's case that the occurrence Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 9 was ever witnessed by any other person except PW4 and PW5. Assuming for the sake of argument, some persons had gathered at the spot after the incident, their non-examination will not, in any way, affect the prosecution case because they were not the persons, who had actually witnessed the occurrence. Sequelly, the prosecution was also not legally required to examine unnecessary witnesses. Moreover, there is no legal requirement for the prosecution to produce each and every witness of the occurrence, in question, in the Court in view of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which postulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact in issue, specially when its case is duly proved by ocular version coupled with medical evidence.
27. The next argument of the learned counsel that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short as is required to prove a criminal charge against the appellant, again is not tenable. As is clear from the record that both PW4-injured/stamped eye witness and PW5-eye witness gave the vivid and consistent version of the occurrence and supported the prosecution story on all vital counts. They were cross-examined at length but nothing substantial material could be elicited in the searching cross-examination to dislodge their testimonies and impeach their credibility. Not only that, the prosecution story is proved by ocular evidence, it finds corroboration from the medical evidence as well, indicating the corresponding injury on the person of injured witness.
28. The plea of false implication and mere denial by appellant-Amrik Singh outrightly deserves to be rejected in the absence of any cogent material on record in this context. More so, when his participation in the commission of crime is duly proved by reliable and cogent evidence.
29. As is evident from the record that if the entire oral as well as medical and the documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is put together as described here-in-above, then it stands proved on record that appellant-Amrik Singh has voluntarily caused and inflicted single injury on the person of PW4, in the same manner as projected by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 10 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances of the case.
30. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants has fairly acknowledged that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of appellant-Amrik Singh any more, in view of the acceptable evidence on record. However, he then urged that assuming for the sake of argument that appellant- Amrik Singh inflicted a single blow to PW4, even then no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against him.
31. Therefore, once the participation of appellant-Amrik Singh in the crime in question is proved and above being the position of evidence on record, now the next short and significant question, though important, arises for determination is, what offence he has committed in this regard?
32. Again, it is not a matter of dispute that appellant-Amrik Singh was substantively charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, which postulates that "whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned".
33. Meaning thereby, in order to invoke the penal provision of offence prescribed under section 307 IPC, the intention or the requisite knowledge to cause death are the essential ingredients. An attempt for purpose of Section 307 IPC should stem from a specific intention to commit murder. In other words, an act though sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, would not constitute an offence under this Section, if the necessary intention or knowledge on the part of the accused is lacking. What is material for the purpose of this offence, is the intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out that intention. Intention and knowledge being a man's state of mind, cannot be proved by direct evidence thereof except Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 11 through his own confession. In the absence of such a confession, intention and knowledge can only be proved by circumstantial evidence. These are the matters of inferences from all the facts and circumstances available on record of a particular case.
34. That being the legal aspect, now it requires to be determined whether in the instant case, appellant-Amrik Singh had the requisite intention to cause the murder of PW4 or had the requisite knowledge that his act in all probabilities, would be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature? In this respect, the prosecution claimed that as soon as PW4 and PW5 came in the street from their residential house to go to their outer house, the appellants met them. According to PW4, appellant Malook Singh (since acquitted) only raised a 'lalkara' and appellant Amrik Singh inflicted a spear blow in his abdomen. Admittedly, only the solitary injury is attributed to appellant Amrik Singh as he did not repeat the injury to PW4 and even did not cause any injury to PW5. Such spears are commonly kept by the persons in farmer community in this part of the region. There is not a whisper in the statements of main witnesses PW4 and PW5 that the appellants came to the spot with pre-planning and prior meeting of minds to commit the offence. The incident originated at a spur of moment, which enraged appellant-Amrik Singh to inflict an injury to PW4 in this manner.
35. From the sequence of events, narrated here-in-above, it cannot possibly be inferred (in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence on record) that all the essential ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC are complete. On the contrary, these are totally lacking and completely missing in the instant case. If appellant-Amrik Singh had the requisite intention to cause murder, then he would have repeated the injury or caused more serious injuries to PW4 on his vital parts. Therefore, it is held that appellant-Amrik Singh did not have either the intention to murder of PW4, nor had the requisite knowledge that his act is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, particularly when he did not repeat the injury. It means, appellant Amrik Singh only intended to cause a grievous hurt to PW4, during the course of occurrence. Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 12
36. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. As per PW1, there was only one wound of 3 cm x 0.7 cm on the right side and front of abdomen in the right iliac region. The occurrence, in this case, took place on 20.10.1995. PW1 vaguely declared the injury as dangerous to life on 8.11.1995, vide his report (Ex.PB), on the basis of surgical opinion of PW2. Admittedly, PW1 did not operate PW4 at any point of time. It was PW2 who performed the operation. He was the right person to give opinion with regard to the nature of injury. Why the police did not obtain the opinion from PW2 and obtained the opinion after 18 days from PW1 for the reasons best known to it and it remained an unfolded mystery.
37. In this view of the matter, the vague opinion of PW1, on the basis of operation notes of PW2 and not by PW2, who actually conducted the operation, pales into insignificance. Be that as it may, even PW1 has simply declared the injury as dangerous to life. Meaning thereby, the words "dangerous to life" are equivalent to "endangering life" and such injury squarely falls within the ambit of clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC, which is punishable under Section 326 IPC.
38. The distinction between the words "dangerous to life" and "endangering life" came to be determined by a Division Bench of this Court in Atma Singh Versus The State of Punjab, 1982(2) CLR 496 and it was held as under:-
"Held, that the expression 'dangerous' is an adjective and the expression 'endanger' is verb. An injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as 'dangerous to life' and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life', he means an injury which endangers life in term of clause 8 of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, for, it describes the injury 'dangerous to life' only for the purpose of the said clause. He instead of using the expression that this was an injury which 'endangered life' described it as 'dangerous to life', meaning both the time the same thing".
39. The same view was expressed by this Court in cases Tej Ram Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 13 Versus The State of Punjab, 1978 (6) CLR, 76 and State of Punjab Versus Tara Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 184, that injury described by the doctor as 'dangerous to life' and if not treated i.e. to say that but for timely and medical aid the injured was likely to die. Such type of injury/opinion is not the type of the injury as would attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, which envisages an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and such injury would fall within the ambit of clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC and would be punishable under Section 326 IPC and in view of such opinion, charge under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained.
40. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the evidence on record as depicted here-in- above, it can safely be held that appellant-Amrik Singh did not intend to attempt to commit murder of PW4, but he only intended to and caused a single grievous injury. Hence, all the essential ingredients of intention and knowledge of the offence under section 307 IPC are totally lacking. So, he cannot possibly be held guilty of an attempt to murder with the offence prescribed under Section 307 IPC. His indicated act squarely falls within the four corners of clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC, which is punishable under Section 326 IPC. To this extent, the trial court appears to have gone legally wrong in this relevant direction.
41. In the light of aforesaid reasons, having extended the benefit of doubt, appellant-Malook Singh is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Sequelly, appellant-Amrik Singh is also acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. But, at the same time, he is held guilty and is hereby convicted under Section 326 IPC.
42. The learned counsel for the appellants has stated at bar that appellant Amrik Singh has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of more than three months of his substantive sentence without remission. This fact is acknowledged by the learned State counsel. The prayer of learned counsel is that appellant Amrik Singh is ready to compensate PW4 in lieu of his injury in terms of money, so he be sentenced to the period already undergone by Criminal Appeal No.481-SB of 1999 14 him.
43. Again, it is a matter of fact that the appellant was an young boy of about 20 years of age at the time of occurrence, which originated at the spur of moment. He was working as Patwari in the Revenue Department of the State. The complainant party and the accused party belong to the same village. Appellant Amrik Singh has suffered the agony of protracted trial/appeal for the last about 15 years. Thus, to my mind, ends of justice would squarely be met and sub-served, if appellant-Amrik Singh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and he is directed to pay some compensation in this respect.
44. In this view of the matter, appellant Amrik Singh is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for the commission of offence punishable under section 326 IPC and he is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to be paid to PW4-Surjit Singh in lieu of his injury within two months. However, sentence of fine is maintained.
45. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is partly accepted and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are modified accordingly, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
46. Needless to say, the compliance and procedural consequences would follow.
2.3.2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No