Punjab-Haryana High Court
) Crl.A. No.S-1457 Sb Of 2003(O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 12 November, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1) Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003(O&M)
Date of decision : 12.11.2013
...
Darshan Singh and others
................Appellants
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
2) Crl. R. No. 1897 of 2003(O&M)
...
Harnek Singh
................Petitioner
vs.
Darshan Singh and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate and
Sh. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
Sh. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for
Sh. P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the revisionist.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Vide this judgment, two cases, bearing Crl.A.No.S-1457 SB of 2003 titled as Darshan Singh and other vs. State of Punjab and Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -2- Crl.R.No. 1897 of 2003 titled as Harnek Singh vs. Darshan Singh and others, are being disposed of as both of them have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Sh. G.S. Dhiman, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur.
The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Harnek Singh injured, who has stated that he was working as Manager of Dhuri Sugarcane Growers Co-operative Society Limited, Dhuri. On 3.6.1997 Lakhwinder Singh s/o Raj Singh and nephew of Darshan Singh came to his house at about 8.00 A.M. and told him that he has been called by his uncle Darshan Singh. Thereupon Harnek Singh accompanied him to village Ghanauri on his scooter and they reached the house of Darshan Singh. There Darshan Singh accused asked Harnek Singh as to what had happened yesterday, upon which Harnek Singh replied that his votes were less and therefore, resolution was passed against him. Darshan Singh than asked Harnek Singh as to why he had not gone to Chandigarh. Harnek Singh replied that Directors had told him that there was no need for him to go to Chandigarh. Darshan Singh told that Harnek Singh should have cancelled the meeting. Harnek Singh replied that there was no reason to cancel the meeting. In the meantime, at about 9.00 A.M. Kala Singh s/o Darshan Singh and Lakhbir Singh s/o Raj singh reached there. All the three accused started giving fist blows to Harnek Singh. Kala Singh gave a fist blow on the left ribs and Darshan Singh and Lakhbir Singh s/o Raj Singh brought iron rods from inside. Darshan Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -3- Singh gave rod blow on the left leg and left elbow of Harnek Singh. Kala Singh gave a dang blow on right elbow and Lakhbir Singh s/o Raj Singh gave rod blow on his right thigh. In the meantime, Satwant Singh brother of Harnek Singh, Ex Sarpanch reached there and he rescued Harnek Singh from the clutches of the accused. However, out of fear Satwant Singh then went to his house. Darshan Singh accused and son of Kala Singh brought Harnek Singh to Civil Hospital, Sherpur in a Matador, where his signatures were obtained on some papers when he was unconscious. Then both the accused took the injured to Jarnail Singh who practises as Doctor at Dhuri, where Inderjit Singh was present and he got Harnek Singh admitted in Civil Hospital, Dhuri, where his statement was recorded.
After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of documents were supplied to them as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Since one of the offence complained of was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charge under Sections 307, 325, 323, 364, 34 IPC was framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of accused examined PW-1 Dr. Romesh Sharma, who proved the MLR, PW-2 Dr. S.P. Gupta, who proved X-Ray, PW-3 Dr. Dhanwant Singh, PW-4 Jarnail Singh, PW-5 HC Lakhwinder Singh, PW-6 ASI Sukh Ram , PW-7 Mohd. Nishar, PW-8 Jagdesh Sharma, PW-9 Constable Gian Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -4- Singh, PW-10 MHC Baldev Singh, PW-11 Harbans Singh, PW-12 Amar Nath, PW-13 Mehma Singh, PW-14 Harnek Singh - complainant, PW-15 ASI Amrik Singh and closed the prosecution evidence.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied. They have pleaded that Harnek Singh received injuries in an accident. Darshan Singh and Lakhbir Singh admitted him in Civil Hospital, Sherpur, where he gave statement to the doctor that injuries were the result of accident and he does not want any action and the case has been planted upon them. They were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, Medical officer, PHC Sherpur and DW-2 Rakesh Kumar, Pharmasist.
Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty under Sections 342/325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-
Name of the convict U/s Sentence
Kala @ Avtar Singh 325 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
RI for 6 months.
342 IPC To undergo RI for 1 year
323/34 IPC To undergo RI for 9 months
323 IPC To undergo RI for 9 months
Chugh Banita
2013.11.15 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -5-
Name of the convict U/s Sentence
Lakhbir Singh 325/34 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
RI for 6 months.
342/34 IPC To undergo RI for 1 year
323/34 IPC To undergo RI for 9 months
323/34 IPC To undergo RI for 9 months
Darshan Singh 325/25 IPC To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
RI for 6 months.
342 IPC To undergo RI for 1 year
323/34 IPC To undergo RI for 9 months
323/34 To undergo RI for 9 months
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Sh. G.S. Dhiman, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur, the accused appellants have preferred Crl.A.No.S-1457 SB of 2003, whereas Harnek Singh injured has preferred Crl.R.No. 1897 of 2003 for convicting the appellants under Section 307 IPC and 364 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the prosecution, Satwant Singh, brother of the complainant Harnek Singh had witnessed the occurrence but he has not been examined. The prosecution has examined PW-13 Mehma Singh. Name of this witness is not mentioned in the FIR. He has been made up a witness just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. DW- 1 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has categorically stated that injuries received by Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -6- the complainant were result of fall. Darshan Singh and Lakhbir Singh have accompanied the injured to the hospital. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.
Harnek Singh is the injured witness and he has supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. He was cross examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard his sworn testimony. The injuries sustained by Harnek Singh are duly reflected in his Medico Legal Report. There was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused and to allow the actual culprit to go scott free. The manner of incident propounded by the accused is not possible. DW-1 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar has stated that injuries received by the complainant are the result of fall. Mere fact that Darshan Singh has accompanied the injured to the hospital is not a ground to discard the prosecution story. The accused have been convicted under Section 342 IPC also for wrongfully confining him. Mere fact that name of Mehma Singh is not mentioned in the FIR and that Satwant Singh brother of the complainant has not been examined, does not create dent in the prosecution story. It is not the quantity of witnesses but quality of witnesses, which matters in the criminal cases. The conviction can be maintained on the sole testimony of complainant. The complainant is an injured witness and his presence cannot be doubted.
Chugh Banita2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -7-
So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Sections 325, 324, 342, 34 IPC does not call for any interference.
Learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist has submitted that offence under Sections 307 and 364 IPC is also made out against the accused. However, counsel for the revisionist could not point out any material evidence from which the offence under Sections 307 and 364 IPC are made out against the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the appellant in respect of their acquittal, in that case lenient view be taken regarding quantum of sentence.
All the three appellants have already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 19 days out of their substantive sentence. Appellant Darshan Singh is about 64 years old. He is suffering from diabetes and due to diabetes his leg has to be amputated. Age of appellant Lakhbir Singh has also been mentioned as 22 years in the judgment of the trial Court. The occurrence has not taken place by premeditation. Only one grievous injury falling within the ambit of Section 325 IPC has been attributed to each of the appellants Kala and Darshan Singh. They are not the previous convicts and are not facing trial in any other case. They have already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 19 days each. The occurrence relates to more than 16 years back. The complainant Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -8- can be compensated with the costs, as provided under Section 357 Cr.P.C. To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following authorities:-
1. Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh 1988 (2) RCR (Criminal) 394;
2. Roy Fernandes vs. State of Goa and others 2012 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 285;
3. Balbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 109;
4. Karnail Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 502;
5. Ashok Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623;
6. Harbans Gir etc. vs. Punjab State 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 239;
7. Dalel Singh vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 358;
8. Tota Singh and others vs. State of Punjab 2003 (3) AICLR 400;
9. Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana 2001 (2) CLJ (Criminal) 149;
10.Nakchhed vs. State of U.P. 1998 SCC (Cri) 603 and
11.Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) RCR (Criminal) 566.Chugh Banita
2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -9-
It is further submitted that in authority in Hari Kishan's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of this Court, vide which the benefit of probation was extended to the accused in respect of offence under Sections 325/149, 323/149 and Section 148 IPC.
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that appellants are not entitled to the concession of probation or reduction of sentence. Prayer has also been made by him to grant compensation to the injured.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for both the sides regarding quantum of sentence and grant of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Kishan's case (Supra), affirmed the order of this Court dated 13.11.1984 vide which the accused appellants have been extended the benefit of probation in respect of their conviction under Sections 325/149, 323/149 and Section 148 IPC. In the said case also accused were acquitted under Sections 307/149 IPC and were convicted under Sections 325/149. 323/149 and 148 IPC. This Court granted the concession of probation and also directed them to pay compensation to the injured.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Roy Fernandes's case (Supra) converted the sentence of the accused under Section 302 IPC to Section 325 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone after awarding compensation. The incident in that case had Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -10- taken place 15 years back.
In Balbir Singh's case (Supra) the benefit of probation for offence under Section 325 IPC was allowed, where the occurrence had taken place 14 years back and there was no dispute between the parties thereafter.
In Karnail Singh's case (Supra) also this Court granted the benefit of probation for offence under Section 325 IPC after granting compensation to the injured.
In Ashok Kumar's case (Supra), Harbans Gir's case (Supra), Dalel Singh's case (Supra), Tota Singh's case (Supra), Om Parkash's case (Supra) and Baldev Singh's case (Supra), this Court allowed the concession of probation in respect of offence under Section 325 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nakchhed's case (Supra) reduced the sentence in respect of offence under Section 325 IPC to the period already undergone where the sentence awarded was 3 years. So, keeping in view, the ratio of abovesaid authorities and that Darshan Singh - appellant has become handicapped and that Lakhbir Singh was of young age at the time of occurrence, the sentence of all the appellants stands reduced to the period already undergone, which is 2 months and 19 days as per the conviction slip. Otherwise also, as per the conviction slip the accused are not facing trial in any other case and are on bail for the last about 16 years and they must have settled in their lives.
In this case Harnek Singh complainant has suffered 2 Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -11- fractures i.e. one of the left leg and another of 6-7 ribs, besides other simple injuries. So, each of the appellant is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant Harnek Singh. The said amount shall be deposited within two months from today before the trial Court for disbursement of the same to the complainant Harnek Singh, if alive. In case of his death, this amount shall be paid to his legal heirs. In case the amount of compensation as mentioned above is not deposited within two months from today, in that case, the appellants shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
The appeal, as well as, the revision petition stand disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 12.11.2013 Judge chugh Chugh Banita 2013.11.15 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document