Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bittu And Another vs State Of Haryana on 27 May, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: 27.5.2010
Bittu and Another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana, for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed by appellants Bittu son of Sadhu Ram and Anil Kumar son of Ami Chand. They were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 365 dated 13.10.1999, registered at Police Station Hansi, under Sections 316, 452, 506 and 34 IPC.
The trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 13.2.2002, had come to a conclusion that no offence under Section 316 IPC was made out against the appellants. However, they were held guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of sentence dated 14.2.2002, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence under Section 323 IPC and for a period of six months each, for the offence under Section 506 IPC. They were also Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 2002 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days, for the offence under Section 452 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
In the present case, the FIR Ex.P9 was lodged on the statement Ex.P5 made by PW.3 Mayawanti, on 9.10.1999. In her statement, she stated that on 7.10.1999, a quarrel had taken place between her husband Lal Chand, Roshan Lal, brother of Anil Kumar and Dhanpat son of Bhopal Ram, Caste Naik, residents of Jagga Bara, regarding which her husband had given an application in the Police Station and legal action had been taken against them. On 8.10.1999, both of them were released on bail. Due to this grudge, on 8.10.1999 at about 7.00 P.M. when she was putting meals to her husband, Anil Kumar son of Ami Chand and Bittu son of Sadha Ram had trespassed into her house and hurled abuses. Anil Kumar gave a kick blow in the abdomen of the complainant, whereas Bittu had twisted her left wrist. She had raised a noise due to which Som Nath and Darshan were attracted to the spot. While going, the accused left a threat that they would liquidate the complainant. Due to the kick blow given in the abdomen of the complainant, she suffered pain and bleeding. At that time, she was pregnant by two months.
The trial Court, while acquitting the appellants for the offence under Section 316 IPC, had observed as under:-
"17. In the case in hand only one kick blow was given on the abdomen of Mayawanti by accused Anil whereas the co-accused Bittu has twisted her left Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 2002 3 wrist. The act of both the accused cannot be said to be done with an intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide to the injured. Hence, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 316 IPC even though it resulted into the death of a quick unborn child. Here it will not be out of context to point out that first perception at the fetal movement occurred at any time between the 14-18 weeks as per Apex Court's judgment Mahendera Manilal Nanavati vs. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati AIR 1965 Supreme Court 364, whereby the Apex Court preferred and put reliance on test book titled "Obstetrics and Gynaecology" by Duqald Baird and "Manual of Obstetrics" by Eden and Holland to those in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence. The quicking starts after 14 to 18 weeks of the pregnancy. In the case in hand the complainant has alleged that she was having pregnancy of two months. Therefore, in the instant case there was no quicking. Hence, the accused could not have caused death of a quick unborn child".
From the entire conspectus of the prosecution case, it is evident that due to earlier dispute, the appellants had entered into the house of the complainant, hurled abuses and a kick blow was given by appellant Anil Kumar in her abdomen and Bittu had only twisted her left Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 2002 4 wrist. These injuries were simple in nature.
In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1999. At the time of framing of charge on 9.3.2000, the age of appellants Bittu and Anil Kumar was recorded as 18 and 24 years, respectively. Both the appellants were in their youth. In the last 11 years, the appellants may have fastened themselves with the responsibilities of the family. Since the trial Court held that the appellants had caused simple injuries to the complainant, this Court is of the view that sending them behind the bars, at this stage, will not serve any useful purpose. However, an opportunity can be granted to them to reform themselves and lead the path of rectitude.
Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall undertake to appear and receive the sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so and be of good behaviour. However, the cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.10,000/- each. The trial Court shall call upon the appellants to furnish probation bonds and deposit the cost of litigation. In case, the cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the appellant. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured as compensation.
With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed of.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 27, 2010 "DK"