Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anokh Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 31 October, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003
.....
Date of decision:31.10.2013
Anokh Singh and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagrit S. Lalli,
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by appellants Anokh Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina, Karaj Singh alias Kaja, Chanan Singh alias Chana and Hardip Singh alias Babba against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby they have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Accused-appellant Anokh Singh has also been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and other accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Hardip Singh has also been convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [2] other accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Bakhshish Singh, Karaj Singh, Chanan Singh and Sukhchain Singh have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and accused Hardip Singh and Anokh Singh have also been convicted for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. All the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Accused Anokh Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of `3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. All other accused, namely, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh, Karaj Singh alias Kaja, Chanan Singh alias Chana and Hardip Singh alias Babba have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Hardip Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 325 IPC. All other accused, namely, Anokh Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh, Karaj Singh alias Kaja and Chanan Singh alias Chana have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [3] rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Bakhshish Singh, Karaj Singh alias Kaja, Chanan Singh alias Chana and Sukhchain Singh have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Accused Anokh Singh and Hardip Singh have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receiving `Ruqa' from the hospital regarding admission of injured Veerpal Kaur, the Investigating Officer went to the hospital, where he came to know that she has been referred to D.M.C., Ludhiana. Then on 27.10.2000, `Ruqa' Ex.PK was received from Ludhiana and the Investigating Officer moved an application regarding the fitness of Veerpal Kaur, who was declared unfit to make statement. Then statement of Jasvir Singh was recorded, in which he stated that on 21.10.2000 his son Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi had gone to hear the folk singers at the betrothal ceremony of Ginder Singh. Geja Singh son of Bakhshish Singh quarreled with him and deflated both the tyres of his cycle. House of Bakhshish Singh is opposite to his house. On 26.10.2000, due to Diwali at 6.00 p.m., the complainant and his son Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi were fixing electric extra lights, then Anokh Singh armed with a `Takua', Bakhshish Singh armed with a `Kasoli', Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Karaj Singh alias Kaja armed Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [4] with `Sotis', Chanan Singh empty-handed and Babba Singh armed with a `Soti' came from the house of Anokh Singh towards his plot where he had constructed new house, but boundary wall had not been made. Immediately, on coming Anokh Singh gave abuses by stating that they would be taught a lesson for picking-up quarrel with Geja Singh. The complainant, his wife Veerpal Kaur and his mother Mohinder Kaur came in the plot from the house and Karaj Singh alias Kaja after throwing `Soti' caught hold of Veerpal Kaur and Anokh Singh gave `Takua' blow from direct side, which fell on the left side of her head and she fell down. Chana Singh caught hold of the complainant and Bakhshish Singh gave a `Kasoli' blow, which fell on front of his head and the blow of `Dang' given by Babba fell on the upper part of his right foot and Chaina alias Sukhchain Singh gave two-three `Soti' blows to complainant's mother Mohinder Kaur on her back. They all raised `raula' (alarm) of `being killed - being killed' and his son Dharamdip Singh, who was standing on the roof and was fixing extra lights, also raised `raula' and all the accused ran away from the spot with their weapons. His son Ladi had also witnessed the entire occurrence from the roof top, but being afraid of he did not come down. The motive behind the occurrence was that on 21.10.2000, Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi and Geja Singh son of Bakhshish Singh had quarreled when they had gone to hear folk singers, due to that, all the accused caused injuries to complainant's wife, to his mother and the complainant. Veerpal Kaur being having serious injury on her head, the complainant and his son Dharamdip Singh first brought her to Hospital at Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [5] Bhagta Bhaika, where the doctor after giving her first-aid, referred her to D.M.C., Ludhiana. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. During investigation, medical examination of Mohinder Kaur was got conducted. Medical examination of Jasvir Singh was conducted in D.M.C., Ludhiana. The spot was inspected. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. Accused Anokh Singh suffered disclosure statement that he had kept concealed `Takua' under the cotton sticks and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the same. Bakhshish Singh got recovered `Kasoli' in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After necessary investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused, framed charge for the offence under Section 148 IPC against all the accused. Anokh Singh was charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC and other accused were charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Accused Hardip Singh was charged for the offence under Section 325 IPC and other accused for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Bakhshish Singh, Karaj Singh, Chanan Singh and Sukhchain Singh were further charged for the offence under Section 323 IPC and accused Anokh Singh was charged for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [6] Ajay Kumar, Senior Resident, Government Medical College, Patiala, who deposed regarding conducting medico-legal examination of Mohinder Kaur on 31.10.2000 and found the following injuries:-
"1. Horizontal contusion 5 cm x 1 cm at the level of T-7 vertebra 2 cm from midline on left side. Brown in colour with greenish tinge.
2. Horizontal contusion 8 cm x 1 cm above injury No.1, brown in colour with greenish tinges.
3. Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm running obliquely across left scapula. Brown in colour with greenish tinges."
All the injuries were simple in nature and were caused with blunt weapon.
PW-2 Constable Subegh Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PC. PW-3 Jasvir Singh complainant and injured eye witness deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi is the son of the complainant and Veerpal Kaur and is eye witness, who deposed as per prosecution version.
PW-5 Dr. Naveen Bansal, Registrar, New D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana deposed that on 2.11.2000, he conducted medico-legal examination of Jasvir Singh and found the following injuries:-
"1. Tenderness present on the right ankle joint.
2. Tenderness and swelling over the left leg upper 1/3.
3. Swelling and tenderness over the left wrist.
4. 2 cm healed wound over the head (cutless lacerated wound (CLW).Parmar Harpal Singh
2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [7]
5. 3 cm healed wound over the chest. (CLW).
Again said:-
4. 2 cm CLW over the head (healed) 12 cm superior to glabella and 2 cm away from the midline.
5. 3 cm CLW over the chest (healed) starting in the mid-
auxiliary line going medially and downwards to end in the anterior auxiliary line involving the 6th and 7th inter coastal spaces (ICS)."
PW-6 Dr. Amit Sidana, Senior Resident, Department of Surgery, D.M.C., Ludhiana, deposed that on 27.10.2000, he conducted medico- legal examination of Veerpal Kaur and found the following injuries:-
"1. C shape cutless lacerated wound on left parietal area, starting 11 cm above the glabella, 2 cm lateral to midline going laterally upto 3 cms, then forwards and laterally upto 6½ cms. Distal end is 7 cms from tragus of left ear and 6 cms from outer canthus of left eye. Brain matter coming out with active bleed.
2. Left black eye."
The doctor declared injury No.1 on the person of Veerpal Kaur to be dangerous to life.
PW-7 Dr. Gurjit Singh Dhatt, P.G. Resident mainly deposed regarding the opinion that Veerpal Kaur was not fit to make statement and on the application filed by the Police, he declared Veerpal Kaur not fit to make statement. PW-8 Dr. Sachin Jindal, P.G. Resident, deposed that on Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [8] 2.12.2000, 5.12.2000 and 25.12.2000, he declared patient Veerpal Kaur unfit to make statement. PW-9 Dr. Puneet Gupta, Registrar also mainly deposed that on 3.11.2000, 8.11.2000 and 15.11.2000, he declared patient Veerpal Kaur unfit to make statement. He also deposed regarding the treatment given as mentioned in the bed head ticket. PW-10 Dr. Gulzar Gupta, P.G. Registrar, deposed that he had brought the record of patient Veerpal Kaur and deposed regarding the treatment and on 27.10.2000 he declared Veerpal Kaur not fit to make statement. PW-11 HC Jeet Singh deposed that he was with the Investigating Officer and mainly deposed regarding the investigation and stated that the Investigating Officer interrogated accused Anokh Singh, who in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered a `Takua'. He also deposed regarding the interrogation of Bakhshish Singh, who in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered a `Kasoli'. PW-12 ASI Gurjit Singh, In-charge, Police Post, Chauke is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding conducting of investigation in this case. PW-13 MHC Nirmal Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW13/A. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Accused Anokh Singh aged 76 years stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence. He had been involved being eldest in the family. Bakhshish Singh is his son and Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina is his grandson. Chanan Singh and Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [9] Hardip Singh alias Babba are the sons of his younger brother Amrik Singh. Karaj Singh alias Kaja is his daughter's son, who had settled in their village. Complainant Jasvir Singh, his wife Veerpal Kaur and his mother Mohinder Kaur surrounded Karaj Singh and started abusing him. They slapped him and had an altercation with him, finding no course open, he gave a `Kasoli' blow on the head of Veerpal Kaur and some other injuries were also sustained by complainant and his wife and mother because of the scuffle which took place between them. Their entire family is agriculturist and are illiterate. The complainant tactfully had involved all of them. He being very old person, can never opt to inflict any injury especially to a woman at such age.
Accused Bakhshish Singh stated that his father Anokh Singh and his son Sukhchain Singh had been wrongly involved. He had an other son Geja Singh, who is only 13 years old and he had not been involved being minor. Chanan Singh and Hardip Singh alias Babba are his cousin brothers, Karaj Singh is his sister's son. In fact, Jasvir Singh, his wife Veerpal Kaur and his mother Mohinder Kaur surrounded Karaj Singh because of an altercation occurred a few days earlier with Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi. They all slapped him, abused him and scuffle took place with Karaj Singh. In his self-defence, Karaj Singh gave a `Kasoli' blow to Veerpal Kaur and other injuries were also sustained by the associates of the complainant. He was not present when the occurrence took place. Accused Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case and adopted the plea of Bakhshish Singh. Chanan Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [10] Singh alias Chana and Hardip Singh alias Babba stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case being nephew of co-accused Anokh Singh and they were not present at the time of occurrence. Accused Karaj Singh alias Kaja stated that on 21.10.2000, he quarreled with Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi when he had gone to hear folk singer in Village Dialpura Bhaika. He is also known as Geja Singh and Dharamdip Singh felt insulted. On 26.10.2000, in the evening, he was present outside his house and the house of Veerpal Kaur is situated opposite to their house. Jasvir Singh, his wife Veerpal Kaur, his mother Mohinder Kaur and his son Dharamdip Singh came and started scolding him. Thereafter, Jasvir Singh and his wife Veerpal Kaur slapped him and Veerpal Kaur caught from his neck. The scuffle was continuing and he tried to pacify all of them but they did not stop. Being danger to his life, he picked-up `Kasoli, which was lying by the side of `Khal' (small water course), which hit on the head of Veerpal Kaur. Beside this, there was also scuffle at the time of occurrence. He was alone. Anokh Singh is his maternal grand-father and Bakhshish Singh is his maternal uncle, who is the only son of Anokh Singh. Sukhchain Singh is the son of Bakhshish Singh. Hardip Singh and Chanan Singh are the sons of Amrik Singh and Amrik Singh is real brother of Anokh Singh. All these persons are settled in Village Dialpura Bhai Jhugian. They all had been falsely implicated in this case.
In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Tota Singh, who deposed that he knew both the parties. On 26.10.2000, they heard the noise. Wife of Jasvir Singh had caught hold of Kaja alias Karaj Singh Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [11] from his neck, who ran away after freeing himself and they were abusing each other. Karaj Singh after picking-up a `Kasoli' from the house of Veerpal Kaur gave its blow on her head. Jasvir Singh had come at the spot, but no quarrel took place with Jasvir Singh. No other accused was present there. DW-2 Sukhdev Singh deposed the same facts as deposed by Tota Singh. DW-3 Dinesh Kashyap had brought the donors record register of blood maintained with D.M.C. & Hospital, Ludhiana. On 26.10.2000, Gurdev Singh donated one unit of blood for patient Veerpal Kaur. Jasvir Singh also gave one unit of blood for Veerpal Kaur. DW-4 Gurdev Singh deposed the same facts as deposed by DW-1 and DW-2.
After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, vide its impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the occurrence took place on 26.10.2000 at 6.00 p.m. and the FIR was registered on 27.10.2000 on the statement of Jasvir Singh at about 7.30 p.m. There is delay in recording the FIR and a false version is concocted to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that the defence version has been duly proved by the DWs. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Even if the prosecution proves its case then it can at the most be held as offence under Section 308 IPC because only one blow had been given to Veerpal Kaur on the head and the motive was not to cause injury to her. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [12] She only intervened and received injury and the injury was given from the blunt side of the `Takua'. He further argued that no injury is attributed to Karaj Singh and Chanan Singh, who were stated to have simply caught hold when the injuries were given with `Takua' and `Soti' etc. There was no question of being caught hold. So, the version is unnatural and shows that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, he argued that the appeal should be allowed and the appellants should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the injured complainant and eye witnesses to the occurrence. Their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and investigation of the case. The recovery of `Takua' in pursuance of disclosure statement of Anokh Singh and `Kasoli' in pursuance of disclosure statement of Bakhshish Singh further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. He argued that defence version is not believable. The delay in the present case has been duly explained. Therefore, he argued that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.
I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State.
From the evidence on record, I find that during the pendency of the appeal Anokh Singh has died and appeal qua him is abated. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [13] Further from the evidence, I find that the occurrence took place at 6.00 p.m. on 26.10.2000 and the FIR in the present case been recorded on the statement of Jasvir Singh PW-3 at 7.30 p.m. on 27.10.2000. Though the PWs have deposed that Veerpal Kaur, who has received injury dangerous to life was referred to D.M.C., Ludhiana, but even then PW-4 Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi and Mohinder Kaur were available to report the matter to the Police. There is no explanation as to why they have not got recorded their statements. Therefore, the delay has not been fully explained. It is settled law that the delay in itself cannot be held fatal to the whole of the prosecution case. In the case of delay, the Court is to scrutinize the evidence more cautiously and carefully to separate the grain from the `chaff' i.e. it is the duty of the Court to appreciate the evidence more cautiously and carefully to separate the truth from the lies. In the present case, appellants Chanan Singh alias Chana and Karaj Singh alias Kaja were not attributed any injury to any of the injured. Even Chanan Singh alias Chana was not armed with any weapon. Karaj Singh alias Kaja is stated to be armed with `Soti' and the allegation against him is also that he caught hold of complainant Jasvir Singh. The allegation against Karaj Singh is that he caught hold of Veerpal Kaur injured whereas the allegation against Chanan Singh alias Chana is that he caught hold of the complainant. Even as per prosecution version Karaj Singh alias Kaja caught hold of Veerpal Kaur after throwing his `Soti'. Chanan Singh alias Chana is the son of younger brother of main accused Anokh Singh. Karaj Singh alias Kaja is Anokh Singh's daughter's son. As Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [14] per prosecution version Karaj Singh caught hold of Veerpal Kaur and Anokh Singh gave `Takua' blow on the left side of the head of Veerpal Kaur. If `Takua' blow is to be given to the injured on the head there is no need to caught hold of any person. Similar, is the case regarding Chanan Singh alias Chana that he caught hold of complainant and Bakhshish Singh gave a `Kasoli' blow on the front of head of Jasvir Singh.
Keeping in view the delay in the prosecution version and the fact that both these accused are not attributed any injury and they are also relative of Anokh Singh main accused, reasonable doubt exists regarding their involvement in the present case. Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt to both these appellants, they are acquitted of the charges framed as against them. Hence, the appeal qua them is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court qua them are set aside.
The sentence of imprisonment of the appellants No.4 and 5, namely, Karaj Singh alias Kaja and Chanan Singh alias Chana was suspended vide order dated 26.8.2004 and they were released on bail during the pendency of appeal. As they remained on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal, their bail/surety bonds stand discharged.
As regards appellants No.2, 3 and 6, namely, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Hardip Singh alias Babba, I find that as per prosecution version Bakhshish Singh gave `Kasoli' blow on the head of Jasvir Singh and Sukhchain Singh gave two-three `Soti' blows to Mohinder Kaur. Hardip Singh gave `Soti' blow to Jasvir Singh. Jasvir Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [15] Singh, who is complainant and injured witness, while appearing in the Court as PW-3, deposed as per prosecution version consistently. PW-4 Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi, who is eye witness to the occurrence, has also consistently deposed as per prosecution version. There are no material contradictions or material improvements in their statements, which may go to the root of the case. Injured Veerpal Kaur could not be examined as PW-3 Jasvir Singh stated that due to injury she had become dumb. The statements of PW-3 Jasvir Singh and PW-4 Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi are supported and corroborated by medical evidence. Further, as per evidence on record, `Takua' was recovered from Anokh Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Similarly, `Kasoli' was recovered from Bakhshish Singh appellant in pursuance of his disclosure statement. A perusal of the cross-examination of the PWs shows that there is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve the statements of the PWs. The PWs are truthful, trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Further from the evidence on record, I find that the defence version given in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also by DWs that injuries were given only by Karaj Singh to Veerpal Kaur cannot be believed. There is nothing on the record to support and corroborate the defence version. These DWs have not filed any representation or complaint to the higher authorities regarding false implication of the other accused-appellants. Such type of witnesses can be procured and produced in the defence at any stage. There is nothing on the record that these DWs have taken any step by reporting the matter to Panchayat or by passing a resolution in the Gram Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [16] Panchayat or filing any complaint etc. to the higher authorities. Otherwise also, it looks unnatural that the PWs will not attribute any injury to Karaj Singh alias Kaja, who as per defence version, actually gave the injury. Therefore, the defence version of the accused cannot be believed. Otherwise also, these DWs have not explained injuries on the person of Jasvir Singh and Mohinder Kaur other injured. There is also motive for causing injuries as the DWs have deposed regarding the quarrel between Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi and Geja Singh son of Bakhshish Singh some days prior to the present occurrence. The version of the prosecution looks natural as Dharamdip Singh alias Ladi has not received any injury as he was on the roof affixing extra lights on the eve of Diwali and he raised `Raula' from the roof top.
As regards the argument that the case falls under Section 308 IPC instead of 307 IPC, I find merit in this argument as there was no motive to cause injury to Veerpal Kaur. She only intervened and received the injury. The injury on the person of Veerpal Kaur is from blunt side of `Takua' and there is only one injury on her person and repeated blows were not given. So, in view of these facts and from the evidence on record, I find that it is a case of attempt to commit culpable homicide and not to commit murder. Therefore, the offence under Section 308 IPC is proved instead of offence under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, from the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent evidence. The injury dangerous to life on the person of Veerpal Kaur is attributed to Anokh Singh, who has already died. Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [17] Appellants No.2, 3 and 6, namely, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Hardip Singh alias Babba are,therefore, convicted for the offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. All these appellants have been correctly convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, Hardip Singh for the offence under Section 325 IPC and Bakhshish Singh and Sukhchain Singh for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. As two of the appellants have already been acquitted in this case, therefore, all the accused are acquitted for the offence under Section 148 IPC. The sentences imposed on the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC are upheld. However, the sentences imposed upon the accused-appellants for the offences under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC are modified to the offences under Sections 323 read with Section 34 IPC and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. As the main accused Anokh Singh had died and appellants No.2, 3 and 6, namely, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Hardip Singh alias Babba have been convicted for the offence under Section 308 read with 34 IPC, therefore, keeping in view the fact that already 13 years have passed and all these appellants have caused only simple injuries and they have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC for the offence under Section 308 IPC, consequently, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3½ years each and to pay fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Appeal No.S-459-SB of 2003 [18] offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the sentences imposed against them for the other offences by the trial Court shall remain the same.
With the above modification in the conviction and sentence of appellants No.2, 3 and 6, namely, Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Hardip Singh alias Babba, abatement of appeal qua appellant No.1 Anokh Singh and acquittal of appellants No.4 and 5 Karaj Singh alias Kaja and Chanan Singh alias Chana, the appeal is partly allowed.
The sentence of imprisonment of the appellants No.2, 3 and 6 i.e. Bakhshish Singh, Sukhchain Singh alias Chaina and Hardip Singh alias Babba was suspended vide order dated 21.5.2004 and they were released on bail. As they remained on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal, their bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender themselves before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against them in accordance with law.
Since appellant No.1 Anokh Singh has died, therefore, the appeal qua him is abated.
October 31, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.01.21 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh