Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pat Ram vs State Of Haryana on 19 July, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000
Date of Decision: July 19, 2010
Pat Ram .......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.SK Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt.Advocate General, Haryana.
<><><>
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/31.5.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby accused - appellant Pat Ram with co-accused, Sukhdei has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and it was further directed that the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant and his Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 2 wife. Co-accused, Sukhdei was released on probation by Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 31.5.2000.
2. In brief, the facts as narrated in first para of trial Court judgment are as under:
3. On 6.12.1997, at 11.00 a.m., complainant Bansi Lal and his wife Nirmala Devi were working in their fields which is adjoining the fields of accused-appellant Pat Ram. In the meantime, accused-appellant Pat Ram along with his wife and armed with gandasis came there and started cutting the cotton sticks from the fields of Bansi Lal, who objected to it, but the accused-appellant did not stop and has declared that he would cut the cotton sticks from their fields. On this, some altercation took place between them and accused-appellant Pat Ram gave a ganadasi blow on the head of Bansi Lal and wife of accused Sukhdei also inflicted gandasi blow on the left side of his head. Wife of the complainant also received injuries on her head and left knee when she tried to rescue her husband. On hearing noise raised by the complainant, Mohinder, brother of the complainant reached at the spot and rescued them from the clutches of accused-appellant. Bansi Lal became unconscious. On the basis of allegations, FIR in the present case was registered against the accused-appellant and challan was present in the Court. Accused - appellant Pat Ram and his wife Sukhdei were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34,325/34,324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 7.10.1998, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, Dr.Mohar Singh, Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Sirsa as PW-1; Dr. S.L. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, General Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 3 Hospital, Sirsa, as PW-2; Dr. Joginder Singh, M.O. General Hospital, Sirsa as PW-3; Gurdev Singh, Patwari Halqa Baruwali-Ist as PW-4; ASI Diwan Singh as PW-5; Dr.G.S.Somani, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa as PW-6; Dr.Vresh Bhushan, M.O., General Hospital, Sirsa as PW-7; H.C. Parma Nand as PW-8; Complainant Bansi Lal as PW-9 and Nirmala Devi as PW-10. However, Puran Chand, Om Parkash, Head Constable Ram Pal, ASI Suraj Bhan and SI Balwan Singh, Mohinder and Devi Lal were given up as being unnecessary.
5. PW3-Dr.Joginder Singh, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa has medico-legally examined Bansi Lal, PW9 and noticed the following injuries:-
1. An incised wound size 3.5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep over left side of scalp in parieto occipital area, 7 cms above the pinna of left ear. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray;
2. An incised wound size 2.5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep over left side of scalp in parietal region at right angle to injury no.1. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-ray;
3. An incised wound size 1 cms x 2 cms x skin deep over lateral aspect of left little toe of left toe. Advised x-ray;
4. A reddish contusion size 7 cms x 2.5 cm over left leg posterolateral aspect in upper 1/3rd with swelling and tenderness. Advised x-ray;
5. A reddish contusion size 5 cms x 2 cms over posterior aspect of left leg in calf area, 5 cm below injury no.4.
Advised x-ray;
Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 4
6. A reddish contusion size 6 cms x 2.5 cms over left leg on lateral aspect in lower 1/3rd, 3 cms below injury no.5. Advised x-ray;
7. An abrasion size 1.5 cm x 1 cm over left ankle joint over lateral malleolus with diffuse swelling. Advised x-ray;
8. An abrasion with reddish coloured swelling size 1 cm x 1 cm over the medial side of big toe right foot with bleb of blood collection. Advised x-ray;
9. A linear clear abrasion size 10 cms x .2 cm over left side of back of chest near the mid-line with diffuse swelling and tenderness. Advised x-ray;
10. A linear abrasion size 5 cms x .2 cm over right side of back of chest in lower part with swelling. X-ray advised.
6. Dr. Joginder Singh, PW-3, has medico-legally examined PW10-Nirmala Devi wife of Bansi Lal also and noticed the following injuries :-
1. A lacerated wound size 1 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep over left side of scalp in parieto occipital area, 8 cms above the pinna of left ear. Fresh bleeding was present.
Advised x-ray;
2. An abrasion size .5 cm x .2 cm with contusion reddish coloured over left shoulder at its tip;
3. Complaint of pain in right buttock on medial side. No external injury was seen. Tenderness was present;
4. A reddish contusion size 5 cms x 3 cms over lateral aspect of left knee. Diffuse swelling in left knee was Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 5 present. Tenderness was present. Movements restricted. Advised x-ray.
7. Statement of the accused - appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution version and pleaded that he and his wife were falsely implicated in the case. However, the accused - appellant examined in his defence Mohinder Singh, Registration Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa as DW1 and Puran Ram as DW2.
8. The learned trial Court has observed that the accused - appellant with his wife Sukhdei, co-accused, has caused injuries to the complainant and his wife. The ocular version of the prosecution story also finds corroboration from the medical evidence. The learned trial Court held the accused-appellant and co-accused guilty and sentenced the present appellant for the term as narrated in para 1 of the judgment. However, Sukhdei, co-accused, was released on probation.
9. The present appeal was admitted on 21.7.2000 by this Court and the accused-appellant was ordered to be released on bail.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the instant case there is a delay of more than thirty hours. The incident took place at 11.00 A.M. on 6.12.1997. However, the FIR was lodged on 7.12.1997 at 5.15 P.M. No explanation has come forward for this long delay. He has further argued that unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police renders the prosecution version doubtful and the police has done manipulations in recording the FIR to cover up the delay.
11. Learned counsel has further argued that the appellants were attacked by Bansi Lal, PW3 and Nirmala Devi, PW10 while they were Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 6 working in their fields. The complainant party is the trespassers and whatever injuries the appellant inflicted those were given in self-defence.
12. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the present case. The case of the prosecution is fully established against the accused/appellant.
14. As regards delay, I feel that the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. The delay stands explained by the prosecution. The incident occurred at 11.00 A.M. on 6.12.1997 in which Bansi Lal, PW9 and Nirmala Devi, PW10 sustained injuries. Both of them were admitted in the hospital. HC Parma Nand, PW8, made applications, Exhibit PO & PQ to the Medical Officer seeking opinion regarding their fitness. It is clear from the endorsement(s), Exhibit PO/1 and PQ/1 that both the injured were declared unfit to make statement. On the next day, HC Parma Nand, PW8, again moved application seeking the status of their health and vide Exhibits PO/2 and PQ/2, the injured were again declared unfit to make statement. Subsequently, the statement of Bansi Lal, PW9, was recorded and on its basis, the formal FIR, Exhibit PR/2, was registered. Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the FIR.
15. As regards the plea of self defence, I feel that even if Bansi Lal, PW9, had sold a piece of land to the appellant and the appellant had still true owner so there is no occasion with the appellant to resort to dispossess in the manner the appellant has behaved/acted. The true owner is also required to dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies Criminal Appeal No.558-SB of 2000 7 available under law. Though, from the statement of Mahinder Singh, DW1, it is made out that a piece of the land was sold by Bansi Lal, PW9 to the appellant but there is no proof in regard to the fact that the actual physical possession of the land was also delivered to the accused/appellant.
16. Bansi Lal, PW9 and Nirmal Devi, PW10, received numerous injuries at the hands of the appellant. The number of injuries and their seat clearly establish the intention of the appellant. Accordingly, such an action cannot be permitted to be justified with the plea of self-defence under any provisions of law.
17. In the circumstances, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment/order dated 26/31.5.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa is maintained. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to suffer the remaining part of his sentence.
19.7.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) srm/mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No