Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cra-S-415-Sb-2002 (O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -1-
CRR-1182-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: November 15, 2013
1. CRA-S-415-SB-2002 (O&M)
Harjinder Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2. CRR-1182-2002 (O&M)
Balbir Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate,
for the appellants (in CRA-S-415-SB-2002) and
for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (in CRR-1182-2002).
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State of Punjab.
Mr. Surinder Singh, and
Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocates,
for the complainant-petitioner,
(in CRR-1182-2002)
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. This judgment shall disposed of CRA-S-415-SB-2002 and CRR-1182-2002, which have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -2-
CRR-1182-2002
2. The appellants, namely, Harjinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Major Singh (who died after filing of the appeal), Dalip Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur, have challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 5.3.2002, whereby they were held guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and ordered to undergo the following sentences:
Name Under Sentence Fine In Default
Section (R.I.) (R.I.)
Harjinder 148, IPC Nine -- --
Singh Months
323/149 Six months -- --
IPC
325, IPC One year ` 500/- One month
367, IPC Three ` 1000/- Two months
years
Bhupinder 148, IPC Nine -- --
Singh months
323/149 Six months -- --
IPC
325, IPC One year ` 500/- One month
367, IPC Three ` 1000/- Two months
years
Major Singh 148, IPC Nine -- --
months
323/149, Six months -- --
IPC
325, IPC One year ` 500/- One month
367, IPC Three ` 1000/- Two months
years
Dalip Kaur 148,IPC Nine -- --
months
323, IPC Six months -- --
325/149 Ten ` 500/- One month
IPC months
Gurvinder 148, IPC Nine -- --
Kaur months
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -3-
CRR-1182-2002
323, IPC Six months -- --
325/149, Ten ` 500/- One month
IPC months
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The weapons of offence were confiscated to the State.
2. The prayer in the criminal revision petition, filed by the injured-Balbir Singh, is for enhancement of the sentence. Though there is no specific prayer with regard to grant of compensation, but there is mention to that effect in para No. 4 of the grounds of revision as well as oral submissions were also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Sukhwant Singh was brother of Natha Singh, who was father of the appellants, namely, Harjinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh and Major Singh. Manjit Kaur (PW2) was initially married to Sukhwant Singh, but after his death, she contracted second marriage with injured- Balbir Singh (PW3) and started residing with him along with her two sons.
4. There arose a land dispute amongst Balbir Singh and Manjit Kaur on the one side and the appellants on the other. On 18.8.1996, at around 7:00 p.m., when Manjit Kaur (PW2) along with her husband Balbir Singh (PW3) were pillion on the scooter of Gurpal Singh (PW4) and reached near a turning point on the Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -4- CRR-1182-2002 metalled road, then Harjinder Singh (appellant No. 1) armed with an axe (Ex. MO-1), Major Singh (appellant No. 2, since deceased) with a wooden-rafter (Ex. MO-2), and Bhupinder Singh (appellant No. 3) armed with a Daang (Ex. MO-3) surfaced there. The persons riding the scooter were forced to alight and thereafter Balbir Singh (PW3) and Gurpal Singh (PW4) along with their scooter were dragged to a Haweli, situate at a distance of about 5 Killas. There, Dalip Kaur (appellant No. 4), wife of Harjinder Singh, who was armed with a Daang (Ex. MO-4), exhorted that lesson be taught to the complainant side for cultivating the land. Hearing so, Bhupinder Singh, Harjinder Singh (appellants) put off the turban of Gurpal Singh (PW4) and tied him with the same. Major Singh (since deceased) inflicted a blow with the wooden- rafter on the left knee of Balbir Singh, and as a result thereof, he (Balbir Singh) fell on the ground. Bhupinder Singh and Harjinder Singh gave Daang and axe blows on the person of Gurpal Singh. Harjinder Singh further inflicted a blow from the reverse side of the axe, on the left leg and another near the shoulder of Balbir Singh. Bhupinder Singh inflicted a Daang blow on the left upper arm of Balbir Singh. A Daang blow was inflicted on the head of Balbir Singh by Dalip Kaur. Gurvinder Kaur, wife of Harjinder Singh, inflicted a stick blow on the chest of Balbir Singh. All the appellants retired from the spot with their respective weapons.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -5-
CRR-1182-2002
Manjit Kaur (PW2) raised hue and cry and ran towards the village. Injured-Balbir Singh was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Jatinder Mohan Goyal (PW1) vide MLR (Ex.P1), who found as many as 22 injuries on the person of Balbir Singh. Injury Nos. 2, 6 and 8 were declared grievous and the rest as simple. The kind of weapons used for all the injuries was blunt. All the injuries were caused within probable duration of six hours. Vide his opinion (Ex.P4) dated 9.9.1996 at Mark 'A', the doctor opined that collectively the injuries could be dangerous to life. The arrival of the injured was intimated to the police vide memo (Ex.P5). On 20.8.1996, vide report (Ex.P7), Balbir Singh was declared fit to make a statement. Since the defence counsel was not available, therefore, the cross- examination of Dr. Jatinder Mohan Goyal was deferred.
5. On 19.8.1996, ASI Harbhaj Singh (PW5), Incharge, Police Post, Khunder Uttar, attached to the Police Station, Mamdot, along with fellow police officials went to Police Station, City, Ferozepur, and after obtaining memo (Ex.P5) visited the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, and collected the MLR of Balbir Singh, injured. An application (Ex.P15) was presented before the doctor seeking opinion regarding fitness of Balbir Singh to make statement, but vide endorsement (Ex.P12), he (Balbir Singh) was declared unfit to make the statement. Since Manjit Kaur (PW2) Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -6- CRR-1182-2002 was present in the hospital by the side of her husband, therefore, her statement (Ex.P8) was recorded and she put her signature on the said statement in token of its correctness. ASI Harbhaj Singh (PW5) sent the said statement through Constable Paramjit Singh to Police Station, Mamdot, for registration of a case, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P8/A) was registered by SI Desh Raj. The investigating officer along with Manjit Kaur visited the place of occurrence and on her demarcation, rough site plan (Ex.P16) with correct marginal notes was prepared. Blood smeared earth was lifted from the place of occurrence and the same was packed into a parcel, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'HB'. The scooter, Make-Chetak Bajaj, bearing registration No. PB-03-C- 5438, was also taken into possession from the place of occurrence, vide recovery memo (Ex.P11). The Registration Certificate (Ex.P10) of the scooter was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P9). A turban, a Safa (piece of cloth tied around the head) and one folding stick, were also picked up from the place of occurrence and taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P12). Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after coming back to the police station, the investigating officer deposited the case property with the Moharrir Head Constable. Statement of Gurpal Singh (PW4) was recorded on 20.8.1996. On police request, vide endorsement Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -7- CRR-1182-2002 (Ex.P7), Balbir Singh (PW3) was declared fit to make the statement. On the same day, the complainant, Manjit Kaur, produced the blood stained clothes of Balbir Singh, which were also taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.P18). The appellants, Gurvinder Kaur and Dalip Kaur, were arrested on 25.8.1996 and thereafter the appellant, Harjinder Singh, was arrested on 26.8.1996. Harjinder Singh suffered disclosure statement (Ex.P19) and in consequence thereof got recovered the axe (Ex. MO-1). Rought sketch (Ex.P20) of the axe (MO-1) was prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P21). On the same day, the appellant, Major Singh, was arrested and he produced the wooden plank (Ex. MO-2) and two sticks (Daang) which were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.P22). The appellant, Bhupinder Singh, was also arrested on that day. After return to the police station, the case property was deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable and the accused were confined in the lockup of the police station.
6. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was prepared by SI Desh Raj (not examined) and presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for prosecution of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with 149, IPC.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -8-
CRR-1182-2002
Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the appellants free of cost as envisaged in Section 207, Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149 and 325/149, IPC, were framed against the appellants vide order dated 8.10.1996, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the case was posted for recording of the prosecution evidence.
7. During the pendency of the trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur, an application was presented that the material available on record disclosed the commission of offence punishable under Section 367, IPC, which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the prosecution requested to commit the case to the Court of Session. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 9.5.2000 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 367, IPC, and committed the case to the Court of Session, since it was exclusively triable by the latter Court. The case was entrusted to the Board of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide order dated 21.07.2000, framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 367 read with Section 149, IPC, against the appellants to which they pleaded Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & -9- CRR-1182-2002 not guilty and claimed trial.
9. In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Dr.jatinder Mohan Goel: He had medico-legally examined injured Balbir Singh (PW3). His deposition has already been discussed in the initial part of the judgment.
PW-2 Manjit Kaur: At her instance, FIR was registered. She had witnessed the occurrence and fully supported the prosecution version.
PW-3 Balbir Singh, injured: He too supported the prosecution version and narrated the entire incident of his abduction and causing of the injuries on his person by the appellants.
PW-4 Gurpal Singh: He is an eye-witness of the occurrence. He too supported the prosecution version.
PW-5 ASI Harbhaj Singh: He is the Investigating Officer of the case and his material deposition has also been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. PW-6 Dr.G.S.Nagi: He had radiologically examined injured-Balbir Singh (PW3) and found the following fractures on his person:-
Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 10 - CRR-1182-2002
(a) fracture upper part tibia
(b) fracture both bones right leg
(c) fracture proximal phalanx index finger and fifth metacarpal.
He proved his report (Ex.P-24) and the x-ray films (Ex.P-25 to P-34). This witness was again called for additional evidence and then he deposed that Dr.J.M.Goel (PW1) was working with him and as such, he could identify his handwritting and signatures. He did state that MLR (Ex.P1) of Balbir Singh was in the hand of Dr. J.M. Goel and the same bore his signatures.
10. After closing the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. By and enlarge the incriminating facts were denied by them and in answer to the last question, Harjinder Singh (appellant) stated as under:-
"I am innocent. Civil litigation qua land dispute between the complainant party and us is pending, due to which we have been falsely implicated in this case".
Similar stand was taken by the other appellants. No evidence in defence was led. The learned trial court after holding the appellants guilty awarded the sentences and imposed the fine as has been mentioned in the initial part of the judgment.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 11 -
CRR-1182-2002
11. After filing of the appeal, the appellant, Major Singh, had since expired, therefore, the present appeal abated qua him vide order dated 11.11.2013.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that concededly, Sarpanch Dalip Singh had arrived at the spot but the prosecution did not produce him as a witness which had caused serious prejudice to the appellants. Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) has not been named in the FIR, therefore, her identity could not be established as one of the assailants. The medical evidence shows that the injury on the person of Balbir Singh could be by fall from the scooter. He argues in the last that according to the prosecution version each accused caused one injury on the person of injured-Balbir Singh, therefore, the five accused could inflict five injuries only then how 22 injuries were found on the person of the injured, Balbir Singh. However on the quantum of sentence, he submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996 on account of partition of the land dispute; that the appellants are still maintaining good relations with the complainant side and are attending the social functions with each other; the civil dispute stands resolved and a piece of land has already been handed over to the complaint side; that appellant No. 4, Dalip Kaur and appellant No. 5 Gurvinder Kaur are ladies and have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 12 -
CRR-1182-2002 Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC, as such, they should be extended the benefit of probation.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by Sh.Surinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned trial court, after scanning the material available on record, rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced and no interference is called for by this Court. They further submit that it is the quality and not the quantity which should matter with the Court while appreciating the evidence and the deposition of Balbir Singh-injured, Manjit Kaur (complainant) and Gurpal Singh (PW4) establishes the guilt of the accused and as such, the non-production of Dalip would not prejudice the defence of the accused in any manner.
14. They further argue that identity of Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) has very well been established on record not only from the FIR where the complainant stated that the wife of Harjinder Singh had caused injury on the person of the injured by means of sota (Ex.MOP5) and the injured as well as eye-witnesses identified her in the Court as one of the assailants. They also argue that a person may receive the injuries on account of various reasons. The prosecution has been able to prove that the Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 13 -
CRR-1182-2002 injuries sustained by Balbir Singh were by means of weapons used by the appellants and the defence has not been able to rebut such deposition. It was also submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that each accused was attributed one injury is not sufficient to throw away the well established case of the prosecution on that ground since it was not possible for the injured and the eye-witnesses to minutely narrate as to how many injuries were inflicted by which accused since all the accused started causing injuries with their respective weapons to injured-Balbir Singh, simultaneously.
15. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, submits that though there was a compromise with regard to civil dispute but in spite of that, the appellants had not given the proper share of the land to the complainant side. Even after the said compromise, there was some bickering at the behest of the appellants with the complainant side and the police had initiated preventive proceedings, in terms of Section 107 read with 151 Cr.P.C. They further submit that the sentence awarded to the appellants was already on lower side and as such, there is no scope for reduction of the substantive sentence. Learned counsel for the complainant in support of his criminal revision submits that in view of the number and the nature of Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 14 -
CRR-1182-2002 injuries received by injured-Balbir Singh, adequate compensation in terms of Section 357, Cr.P.C, be awarded to him.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
17. So far as the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Sarpanch Dalip was not examined by the prosecution and as such, the appellants were prejudiced in their defence has no legs to stand. Once the Court had believed the statement of Balbir Singh-injured and that of his wife, Manjit Kaur (PW2) and Gurpal Singh (PW4) who had witnessed the occurrence, therefore, there was no necessity for the prosecution to multiply the evidence. It is the quality and not the quantity which has to matter with the Court. There is no infirmity in the deposition of Balbir Singh (PW3) and that of Manjit Kaur (PW2) and Gurpal Singh (PW4) with regard to the occurrence and receipt of injuries by Balbir Singh. There was no occasion for injured-Balbir Singh (PW3) to have deposed falsely against the appellants. It is very much apparent from the reading of the medical evidence that the injuries found on the person of Balbir Singh could not be self-suffered or self-inflicted injuries. If a person has received number of injuries at the hands of the other persons then he would not spare the real culprits and falsely Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 15 -
CRR-1182-2002 implicate the appellants.
18. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) was not named in the FIR is not tenable. Concededly, Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) is wife of Harjinder Singh and while lodging the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the wife of Harjinder Singh by means of sota (Ex. MO P5) caused injuries on the person of Balbir Singh. During their deposition before the Court, the injured as well as the eye-witnesses specifically deposed that Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) was one of the assailants. In her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C, Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) has stated that she was wife of Harjinder Singh, therefore, the prosecution was able to establish her identity and it further proved that she was one of the assailants who caused injuries to Balbir Singh.
19. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries on the person of Balbir Singh could be by fall would not be sufficient to throw away the whole case of the prosecution. A person may sustain injuries on account of various reasons but question before this Court is that as to whether the injuries received by Balbir Singh were caused by means of the weapons as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has been able to prove the said fact from the Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 16 -
CRR-1182-2002 deposition of the injured and that of the two eye-witnesses. The doctors who conducted the MLR and radiologically examined the injured (Balbir Singh) have not stated anywhere that the injuries could not be caused by means of the weapons being carried by the appellants, therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not sustainable.
20. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that one injury was attributed to each accused and they were five in number, therefore, only five injuries could be inflicted and there was no question of 22 injuries to be inflicted on the person of Balbir Singh is also devoid of force. If five persons open an attack upon an aggrieved person, in that eventuality, it is not possible for a human being to videographically narrate the minute detail of the occurrence. The injured as well as the two eye-witnesses have fully supported the case with regard to the presence of the appellants with their respective weapons and causing of the injuries on the person of Balbir Singh, therefore, this Court is not convinced with this argument as well.
21. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the conviction of the appellants and as such their conviction as recorded by the learned trial court is upheld.
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 17 -
CRR-1182-2002
However there appears to be substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants when he argued that appellant Nos.4 and 5, namely, Dalip Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur were ladies and they had been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC; the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996; the said appellants remained on bail during trial and pendency of the appeal but they did not misuse the said concession and as such, they were entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 360, Cr.P.C. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that Dalip Kaur (appellant No.4) is around 80 years old at present and Gurvinder Kaur (appellant No.5) is in her late 50s. Learned counsel for the appellants had placed reliance on a judgment in the matter of Hansa v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) SCC 575, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court had ordered to release the convict for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, on probation.
22. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the execution of the substantive sentence of Dalip Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur, appellant Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, is kept in abeyance and they are ordered to be released on probation to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years, subject to their furnishing bond in the sum of `50,000/- each with one surety in the like Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 18 -
CRR-1182-2002 amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. In case during the said period, Dalip Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur (appellant Nos. 4 and 5) violate the terms and conditions of the bond, in that eventuality, the Trial Court would be entitled to cancel the bonds and call appellant Nos. 4 and 5 to serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are also ordered to pay `50,000/- each as compensation to the injured, Balbir Singh (PW3). The amount of compensation shall be deposited by appellant Nos. 4 and 5 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, at the time of execution of the bonds for releasing them on probation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, shall release the said amount, if deposited, in favour of the injured, Balbir Singh (PW3) after issuing a notice to him. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 shall comply with this order within three months from the date of its pronouncement, failing which the judgment of the learned Trial Court shall enure, qua him.
23. So far as the appellants, Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh, are concerned, they have been convicted not only for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325, but under Section 367, IPC, as well. Their case is entirely on different footing than that of their co-appellants, Dalip Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur. After scanning the whole material, this Court is Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 19 -
CRR-1182-2002 of considered opinion that the nature of the offences committed by the appellants Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh does not persuade this Court to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or release them on probation in terms of Section 360, Cr.P.C. However, keeping in view the facts that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996 and the appellants were on bail during the pendency of the trial and the appeal and one of the appellants, namely, Major Singh, has since expired and the quarrel had taken place on account of a land dispute, therefore, some concession in their substantive sentences can be extended to them. Therefore, the appellants, Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh, shall undergo the following sentences:
Name Under Section Sentence (R.I.) Fine In Default (R.I.) Harjinder 148, IPC Nine Months -- --
Singh
323/149 IPC Six months -- --
325, IPC One year ` 500/- One month
367, IPC Two years ` 1000/- Two months
Bhupinder 148, IPC Nine months -- --
Singh
323/149 IPC Six months -- --
325, IPC One year ` 500/- One month
367, IPC Two years ` 1000/- Two months
24. Additionally, the appellants Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh are ordered to pay `1,00,000/- each (`1,00,000/- + `1,00,000/- = `2,00,000/-) as compensation in terms of Section 357, Cr.P.C. to the Kapoor Prashant 2013.12.17 11:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRA-S-415-SB-2002 & - 20 -
CRR-1182-2002 injured, Balbir Singh (PW3). All the sentences of Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh appellants shall run concurrently. In default of payment of compensation, as ordered by this Court, the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court to the appellants, Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh, shall enure. The amount of compensation awarded by this Court shall be deposited by the appellants, Harjinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh, with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, within three months of passing of this order and on receipt of the same, a notice would be issued to the injured, Balbir Singh (PW3) for receiving the same in accordance with the norms on the subject.
25. With the above modifications, criminal appeal bearing No. CRA-S-415-SB-2002 is partly allowed.
26. Since the issues regarding quantum of sentence and amount of compensation has already been considered, therefore, no separate order is required to be passed in the connected criminal revision petition bearing No. CRR-1182-2002, and the same is dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
November 15, 2013 JUDGE
Pkapoor
Kapoor Prashant
2013.12.17 11:07
I attest to the accuracy
of this order