Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 10 January, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002
Date of decision: January 10, 2011.
Jarnail Singh
...Appellant(s)
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
Shri Sandeep Mann, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
The present appeal has been preferred by Jarnail Singh son of Piara Singh, who was convicted as an accused in a case arising out of FIR No.126 dated 22.4.1999, registered at Police Station Sadar Palwal, under Sections 279, 337 and 307 IPC. In the above stated FIR, the appellant was tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad who, vide judgment of conviction dated 3.5.2002 held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 279/337 and 308 IPC and acquitted him of the offence under Section 307 IPC and returned a categoric finding that there was no intention of the accused to kill any of the injured but he has committed an attempt to commit culpable homicide, punishable under Section 308 IPC. After holding so, the trial court vide its separate order dated 4.5.2002 sentenced Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 2 :- the appellant to undergo RI for a period of five years under Sections 308 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of one and a quarter years. The trial court further sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of six months for an offence under Section 279/337 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 45 days.
FIR in the above stated case was recorded at the instance of PW1 Krishan Lal. It was stated by Krishan Lal that he was posted on general duty in Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh and deputed on Gypsy No.HR-51-D-7912 for patrolling at GT Road from Jharsentli to Bhagola; on 21.4.1999, at about 8 p.m., he along with companion police officials was standing on the road after having parked the vehicle. At that time, he and constable Ram Chand got down from the vehicle for urination, driver Bal Kishan and Constable Harish Chand were hearing wireless while sitting in the vehicle; at that time, one truck came from the side of Delhi in a rash and negligent manner and hit the police vehicle. Thereafter, the truck sped away from the spot. Constbale Harish Chand and driver Bal Kishan, who were injured to the accident, were taken in a private vehicle to Govt. Hospital, Ballabgarh. The truck number was noticed by the police officials as HR- 01A-6931. It is stated that few days before, the driver of the truck had stated that the police officials are unnecessarily harassing the truck driver, therefore, it was stated that intentionally the truck was rammed into the police vehicle; luckily the police officials escaped from the injury and were saved. The appellant is stated to be driver of the truck. After the above stated FIR having been investigated, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted; the appellant was charged for offences under Section 279, 337 Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 3 :- and 307 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
In the present case, HC Harish Kumar and driver Bal Kishan had suffered injuries; they were medico-legally examined on 22.4.1999 at 12.15 a.m. by Dr. S.C. Bhagat PW6 and the following injuries were found on the person of Harish Chand:-
1. 3 cm lacerated would over the right upper eyelid with bleeding on cleaning with diffuse swelling and ½ cm lacerated would were also present on the right mendible.
2. 3 cm bruise over the right temple of the region. ½ cm wide with diffuse swelling. X-ray skull advised.
3. Injury over the right eyelid with swelling. There is swelling over both the maxillary region.
4. Swelling over the nose with red bruise and abrasion with clotted blood over the right nostril. X-ray PNS was advised.
5. Red bruise over the neck. It is leniar and multiple.
6. Pain over the chest on respiration. No mark of injury could be seen. X-ray was advised.
7. Red abrasion over the right lumbar region.
8. Red abrasion over the left knee. Pain present.
9. Red abrasion over the right leg.
Dr. S.C. Bhagat PW6 found the following injuries on the person of Bal Kishan:-
1. Headache with tenderness over the left temporal region.
2. Abrasion over the right thigh at the back, which is red in colour.
3. Pain at the back, patient unable to perform flexion Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 4 :- movement. X-ray lumo sacral region advised.
4. Red bruise over the left shoulder with red scratches. Patient has restricted movements. X-ray left shoulder advised.
5. Lacerated wound red in colour with diffuse swelling and crepitus felt on left gritto. X-ray advised.
Counsel states that no where it has come that any injury was grievous. It was stated that all the injuries were simple. This fact is also evident from the fact that the appellant has been sentenced under Section 337 IPC and not under Section 338 IPC.
The prosecution examined complainant Krishan Lal as PW1. It will be apposite to reproduce his examination in chief:-
"On 21.4.1999, I was on duty at the jeep No.HR-51-7962 and on that day UGC Hari Chand, constable Ram Chand and driver Bal Kishan were also on duty with me. At about 12/12.15 in the night, when we were standing at Dundsa More in Gypsy, a truck bearing No.HR-01/A-6931 came from Delhi side with a high speed. The truck driver present in the court, who later on disclosed his name Jarnail Singh, hit his truck with the Gypsy (PCR No.7). Driver Bal Kishan and UGC Hari Chand got the injuries. I and Ram Chander were outside the Gypsy for discharging urine. Then we took the injured persons in civil Hospital, Ballabgarh agains sent (sic) we sent the injured in a private vehicle to Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh. Before this occurrence, the driver present in the court, said to us when we were checking on the road that I will see you as you waste our time by checking our vehicles and stopping us. On this, there was some altercation between us and driver on that day. The accused hit his truck to the Gypsy and the officials in order to kill us. On 22.4.1999 I made a statement Ex.PA to ASI Ashok Kumar at Gadpuri More, which bears my signature. On 22.4.1999 Ashok Kumar ASI also took in Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 5 :- possession the truck No.HR-01/A-6931 and PCR No.7 vide recovery memo Ex.PB which bears my signature in the presence of HC Keshav Ram."
In cross examination, this witness stated that the accused gave threat a few days prior to the incident but he could not recollect the date on which that threat was extended. He further stated on the day when the threat was given, he had checked a number of vehicles and he could give number of such vehicles. If that is so, how could this witness state that the appellant had given a threat. It has further come in the evidence that after the accident was caused, the driver had sped away along with the truck. Krishan Lal had not specified the name of the truck driver in the FIR. This Court fails to comprehend as to on what basis Krishan Lal has stated that the appellant was the same person who had left the threat on the alleged day when vehicles were checked. Bal Kishan injured PW2 has supported the case of Krishan Lal PW1. Harish Chand, the other injured, was not examined. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of PW1 Krishan Lal and PW2 Bal Kishan. Allegation that the accused had left the threat and therefore rammed the truck in the police vehicle seems to be too improbable, unnatural and unconvincing. Since the appellant has caused accident with the police vehicle, the allegations have been exaggerated. This appears to be a simple case of accident. As such, earlier enmity of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR. No test identification parade was conducted.
According to the Counsel for the appellant, the truck owner had produced the appellant as driver of the vehicle. Investigating Officer, ASI Ashok Kumar has stated that he has not recorded the statement of the owner Crl. Appeal No.825-SB of 2002 -: 6 :- of the truck who had produced the appellant. Furthermore, no document was produced by the owner before the police to infer that the appellant was employed as driver of the vehicle. This Court can only believe to the extent that the accident had taken place and owner of the truck had produced the appellant. This Court, taking taking totality of circumstances, cannot sustain the conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 308 IPC. For causing accident and simple injuries to the witnesses, the appellant is held liable for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, however, he cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 308 IPC. His conviction under Section 308 IPC is set aside.
Having held that the appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC, the Court has to consider as to whether imposition of six months sentence is justified. Sections 279 and 337 IPC prescribe maximum sentence of six months. The occurrence in the present case had taken place in the year 1999; a period of 12 years is going to elapse, taking into consideration the circumstance that the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that it would serve the ends of justice if the sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 337 and 279 IPC is reduced to three months. Rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 279 and 337 IPC is reduced from six months to three months. However, the sentence of fine and the default clause is maintained.
With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] January 10, 2011. Judge kadyan