Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.1631-SB of 2004
Date of decision: 23.2.2011
Bachan Singh and others
... Appellants
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.P.S.Sidhu, Addl.AG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Crl.Misc.Nos.4070-71 of 2011 Heard.
Allowed.
Crl.Appeal No.1631-SB of 2004 This is an appeal by Bachan Singh, Major Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Dalbir Singh, appellants, to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.8.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, in Sessions Case No.435/2003/FTC, arising out of FIR No.231 dated 8.12.2001 under Sections 302/326/325/323/336/34 IPC and Sections 27/54 of Arms Act, PS, Lopoke.
By the said judgment, they convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 8.12.2001 at about 7.15 PM, Balbir Singh along with his wife Sarabjit Kaur was returning from their fields. On the way, sighted Bachan Singh, armed with dang, Ravinder Singh, armed with .12 bore gun, Major Singh and Dalbir Singh, armed with gandasi, and Sukhdev Singh, armed with .12 bore gun. At that time, Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 2 Paramjit Singh and Bachan Singh were at a distance of about 12 karams. Bachan Singh exhorted his co-accused that Balbir Singh, who was not leaving possession of their share was not to be spared. Then Major Singh gave gandasi blow on the head of Balbir Singh. Sarabjit Kaur tried to intervene, then Ravinder Singh gave butt blow of his gun on the head of Sarabjit Kaur. Bachan Singh gave dang blow on the head of Sarabjit Kaur. On receipt of blows, Sarabjit Kaur fell down. Dalbir Singh gave gandasi blow hitting on the left eye of Balbir Singh. Sukhdev Singh gave butt blow on his left leg. On receipt of blows, Balbir Singh fell down. Ravinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh fired in the air. Paramjit Singh requested the accused not to cause injuries to Balbir Singh. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot. Sarabjit Kaur had succumbed to her injuries at the spot. Pargat Singh, Sahib Singh and Surjit Singh came at the spot. Surjit Singh was left to guard the dead body. Balbir Singh was shifted to the hospital by Pargat Singh and Sahib Singh, where he was medico legally examined. Paramjit Singh had gone to lodge report. After recording the statement of Paramjit Singh by SI Pritam singh, statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded.
Civil litigation was pending amongst the parties. Bachan Singh was threatening to take possession of 3 acres of land out of 17 acres.
SI Pritam Singh had gone to the place of occurrence. Inquest report was prepared. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. Blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence and was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. One chappal, one key and two Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 3 pieces of butt of the gun were also recovered from the spot and were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
On the next day, clothes worn by the deceased were also taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
On 9.12.2001, Gurbinder Singh, SHO, PS Lopoke, had gone to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital and after obtaining opinion regarding fitness of the injured, statement of Balbir Singh was recorded.
Major Singh was arrested on 11.12.2001 and in pursuance of disclosure statement, he got recovered gandasi from the specified place. Sketch of gandasi was prepared and same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
Bachan Singh was arrested on 7.12.2001 and in pursuance of disclosure statement, he got recovered gandasi from the specified place and same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
Ravinder Singh was arrested on 23.12.2001 and in pursuance of disclosure statement, he got recovered rifle along with five live cartridges from the specified place. Rifle and five live cartridges were made into sealed parcels. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses.
Dalbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh were found innocent. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against Bachan Singh, Major Singh and Ravinder Singh. Ravinder Singh was declared proclaimed offender.
Accused were charged under Sections 302/326/325/34 IPC. After the statement of Paramjit Singh, prosecution moved an Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 4 application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. Then Dalbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh, found to be innocent, were summoned to face trial along with the accused. After appearance of Dalbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh, all the accused were charged under Sections 302/326/325/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 Paramjit Singh, PW2 Balbir Singh, PW3 Constable Gurpal Singh, PW4 Dr. Vijay Kumar Bhagat, PW5 Constable Gurmel Singh, PW6 Constable Baljit Singh, PW7 Dr. Gur Iqbal Singh Singh, PW8 Pritam Singh, PW9 ASI Natha Singh, PW10 SI Gurbinder Singh, PW11 Karam Singh, PW12 Dr.Sukhwinder Singh Saggu and PW13 Inspector Kishan Singh.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.
After arguing for some time, when learned defence counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that Ravinder Singh was declared proclaimed offender. After that, he was arrested and was tried separately. Ravinder Singh was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appellants are related to the complainant party. After conviction, parties have effected compromise and the same is Ex.A4. Bachan Singh has already undergone 2 Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 5 years, 7 months and 25 days, Major Singh has already undergone 1 year, 11 months and 23 days, whereas Dalbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh have already undergone 4 months and 15 days each. Major Singh is serving in the police department and he is to lose his job if directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Appellants are ready to compensate the complainant party. Requested to take lenient view.
Learned State counsel argued that Ravinder Singh was tried separately and he was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against acquittal, no appeal by the State. Parties have effected compromise. In view of compromise, appeal be disposed of.
No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellants has not challenged the judgment on the point of conviction and requested to take lenient view, but even then, I want to scrutinize the evidence on the file as to whether occurrence has taken place as per story.
Balbir Singh, injured, appeared in Court as PW2 and has supported the story by saying that appellants had caused injuries, armed with different weapons. PW1 Paramjit Singh has also supported the story by saying that appellants had caused injuries to Balbir Singh and his wife.
PW7 Dr. Gur Iqbal Singh had medico legally examined Balbir Singh and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. 0.7 x 0.5 cm reddish brown abrasion on the inner and dorsal aspect of right foot, 10 cm proximal to big toe.
2. 2 cm x 0.8 cm lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of left leg, 11.5 cm below tibia tuberocity vertically placed. Clotted blood was present and crepits was present. Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 6
3. 0.8 x 0.2 arc shaped reddish brown abrasion on front of rt. leg placed horizontally.
4. 10 cm stitched wound on left side of head parallel to jagittal suture in front to parietal region, 12 cm above left ear with 12 stitches intact.
5. 4 cm stitched wound on left side of face bearing 7 stitches intact vertically placed from just outer end of left eye brow, vertically downward about 1.3 cm outer to outer angle of left eye.
6. Complain of pain on neck and shoulder region of both sides."
Injuries No.1, 3 and 6 were declared simple in nature. Injuries No.2, 4 and 5 were kept under observation and after x-ray, injury No.5 was found to be simple in nature, whereas injuries No.2 and 4 were found to be grievous in nature. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries can be self suffered or self inflicted. No suggestion to the injured or eye witness that injuries noticed by the doctor were self suffered or self inflicted.
Evidence on file shows that there was civil litigation. Dispute was regarding partition of land. So, appellants had motive to cause injuries. Occurrence was during day time near the residential area. Appellants are related to the complainant party. So, there was no idea to leave the real culprit and name the appellants. Evidence was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment is upheld on the point of conviction.
Occurrence was in the month of December, 2001. At that time, Bachan Singh was 75 years' old, Sukhdev Singh was 45 years' old, Dalbir Singh was 35 years' old, whereas Major Singh was 29 years' old. They are Crl.Appeal No. 1631-SB of 2004 7 the first offenders and are related to the complainant party. Bachan Singh has already undergone 2 years, 7 months and 25 days, Major Singh has already undergone 1 year, 11 months and 23 days, whereas Dalbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh have already undergone 4 months and 15 days each. Major Singh is serving in the police department and he is to lose his job if directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Parties have effected compromise after conviction and compromise is on the file. After the occurrence, no further litigation amongst the parties. Parties are residing peacefully. No chance of further litigation. If no weightage is given to the compromise and appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, then there are chances of further litigation.
In view of the compromise, I take lenient view and direct the appellants to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount each for a period of one year to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Appellants are further directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- each more as costs of litigation within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured as compensation. In case of breach of condition of probation bonds and non-deposit of costs of litigation, appellants are to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
23.2.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE