Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cra-S-911-Sb Of 2 vs State Of Punjab on 2 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRA-S-911-SB of 2001
Hardeep Singh and another
..... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
2. CRR No. 1459 of 2001
Jaspal Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Hardeep Singh and another
..... Respondents
Date of decision: 02.02.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
****
PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate,
(for the appellants in CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 and
for the respondents in CRR No. 1459 of 2001).
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
None for the petitioner
(in CRR No. 1459 of 2001).
****
JORA SINGH, J.
CRA-S-911-SB of 2001, was preferred by Hardeep Singh and Suman @ Joseph Tani, to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.8.2001, passed by the learned CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -2- Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1999, arising out of FIR No. 33 dated 6.6.1998, registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 UOC at Police Station Bhogpur.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 307/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as under:
1. Hardeep Singh under Section 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. Hardeep Singh under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. Hardeep Singh under Section 323/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of ` 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
4. Suman under Section 307/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -3-
5. Suman under Section 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
6. Suman under Section 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Co-accused namely Jaswant Kaur @ Satwant Kaur and Jaswinder Singh, were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal no appeal by the State.
CRR No. 1459 of 2001, was preferred by Jaspal Singh, to enhance the sentence with a request that he be compensated to the tune of ` 50,000/-.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 2.6.1998, at about 8/9.00 A.M. Jaspal Singh-complainant along with this mother Balwant Kaur, had gone to cut fodder from the fields having Maize crop. When they were cutting fodder then his father Pavittar Singh, also came there. The adjoining field was that of Hardeep Singh, elder brother of Pavittar Singh. Hardeep Singh was irrigating his fields to plant paddy crop but he has not strengthened the boundary of his field, as a result of which water was filling up in their (complainant) fields. Pavittar Singh asked Hardeep Singh to strengthen the boundaries of his fields to prevent the seepage of water. Hardeep Singh felt offended and abused Pavittar CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -4- Singh and there was exchange of hot words. Hardeep Singh, had gone to his house and came back with a kirpan along with his servant Suman armed with Dang, his wife Jaswant Kaur and son Jaswant Singh @ Jassa armed with sticks. Accused Hardeep Singh, gave kirpan blow from its reverse side hitting on the head of Pavittar Singh. Suman gave dang blow on the head of Pavittar Singh and on receipt of injuries he fell down. Accused gave number of blows to Pavittar Singh, when he was lying on the ground. Jaspal Singh (complainant) when tried to intervene then Hardeep Singh, gave kirpan blow from its right side hitting him on his right hand. Other accused gave dang blows which hit him on his legs. Balwant Kaur, mother of the complainant tried to save them then she was also given injuries with a dang. Her ear rings were also removed. Raula was raised then villagers came to the spot and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. Injured were shifted to Civil Hospital Bhogpur and from there Pavittar Singh, was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar.
Jaspal Singh, was medico-legally examined at Civil Dispensary, Bhogpur. On receipt of ruqa, police party had gone to Civil Dispensary, Bhogpur. Statement of Jaspal Singh, Ex. PD, was recorded. After making endorsement statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Rough site plan with its correct marginal notes was prepared. Accused were arrested. Weapons of offence were recovered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 307/323/324/ read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -5- they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Dr. Balwinder Singh, stated that on 2.6.1998, at about 3.15 a.m. he had medico-legally examined Jaspal Singh and found following injuries on his person:
"1. An incised wound 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the vent aspect of right ring finger. It lied on the middle phalanx and was oblique in direction. It was muscle deep. Margin clear and fresh bleeding was coming. Advised X-ray.
2. An incised wound on the ventral aspect of right middle finger. Wound was 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size. It lied on the proximal phalanx and was oblique in direction. Wound was muscle deep and fresh bleeding coming. Margin of the wound was clear cut. Advised X-ray.
3. Diffused swelling on the dorsal aspect of the left fore-arm in its upper 1/3rd. It was reddish and tender to touch. Advised X-ray.
4. Contusion on the left shoulder joint 8 cm x 2 cm. It was reddish in colour and the movement of left shoulder was painful and restricted. Advised X-ray.
5. Contusion on the left index finger and ring finger on its terminal phalynx and was reddish CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -6- in colour. Advised X-ray.
6. Two lacerated wound upper is 2 cm x 0.5 cm and lower is 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size. Margin irregular and fresh bleeding was present. Wound was bone deep. It lies on the front of the leg and is 20 cm below patella. Advised X- ray. It lies obliquely.
7. Lacerated wound lies obliquely 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of lower 1/3rd of left leg. 4 cm below injury No.6. Margin irregular and fresh bleeding was coming. Advised X-ray.
8. Complaint of pain on the left knee joint but there was no mark of injury on it. Movement of the left knee was painful and restricted. Advised X-ray."
All the injuries were found simple in nature after receipt of X-ray report. Kind of weapon used for injuries No.1 and 2 was sharp and for other injuries was blunt.
PW-2 Dr. Gurinder Kaur, stated that on 2.6.1998 at 12.30 p.m. she had medico-legally examined Pavittar Singh and found following injuries on his person:
"1. 9 x 1 cm and 9 x 1.5 cm two lacerated wounds lying at right angles on the right parietal temporal region of skull. The wounds were bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present and wounds were about 12 cm above the pinna of CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -7- left ear. Advised X-ray skull, A.P. And lateral view and advised surgical specialist's opinion.
2. 15 x 2 cm longitudinal contusion reddish in colour lying oblique on the right lumber region of back."
Injury No.2 was simple in nature and injury No.1 was kept under observation. On receipt of surgical opinion, injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Weapon used to both the injuries was blunt.
PW-3 Jaspal Singh, is the complainant. He has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW-4 Pavittar Singh, is the injured eye-witness and has supported the version of Jaspal Singh.
PW-5 ASI Hardyal Singh, is the Investigating Officer. PW-6 Venus stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PH with its correct marginal notes.
PW-7 Dr. Inderjit Singh, had X-rayed the injuries on the person of Pavittar Singh.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that they are owners in possession of the land. On the alleged day of occurrence, complainant party came to take forcible possession of the land which was in their possession and at that time Suman was irrigating the fields. Complainant Jaspal Singh and Pavittar Singh, started cutting fodder from their fields. Suman raised objection and there was some CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -8- altercation. Jaspal Singh and Pavittar Singh, gave blows to Suman and Suman in the exercise of right to self-defence had caused injuries with a dang to Jaspal Singh and Pavittar Singh. Hardeep Singh, Jaswant Kaur and Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa were not present at the spot. They were falsely implicated to pressurize them to surrender possession of the land.
In defence, DW-1 Harbans Singh, father of Hardeep Singh and Pavittar Singh, appeared and stated that all his sons are residing separately. He is owning land measuring 36 kanals in village Laroya. He was cultivating the land. Separate houses were given to his sons. Land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas was given to Hardeep Singh and in that land he had constructed his house. He is cultivating the land. On 2.6.1998 at about 8.00 a.m. he was present in his fields with Suman. Pavittar Singh and Jaspal Singh came and started cutting fodder from the fields of Hardeep Singh. Suman stopped them from cutting the fodder then there was a scuffle but no body received injuries in this scuffle. Hardeep Singh, Jaswant Kaur and Jaswinder Singh, were not present at the spot. Pavittar Singh and his wife were also not present there. Accused were falsely implicated.
DW-2 Tarsem Singh, stated that parties are known to him. His land is at a distance of 3-4 killas from the land of the accused. On 2.6.1998, at about 8.00/9.00 a.m. he was returning from his fields then noticed some dispute was going on between Suman, Jaspal Singh and father of Hardeep Singh. Bachittar Singh, was also there. He had separated Jaspal Singh and Suman while they were quarrelling with each other.
CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -9-
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that according to the prosecution story, Hardeep Singh, was armed with Kirpan but blow was given from the reverse side of the kirpan. All the injuries on the person of Jaspal Singh, were found to be simple in nature. Only two injuries were noticed on the person of Pavittar Singh. One injury was declared dangerous to life but weapon used to cause both the injuries was blunt. During cross-examination Dr. Gurinder Kaur, (PW-2) stated that injury which was declared grievous in nature was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. No doubt injury was on the head but injury was caused from the reverse side of the kirpan, so, intention was not to murder but intention was to cause injury. Hardeep Singh is the real brother of Pavittar Singh. There was minor dispute regarding the seepage of water from the land of the appellants towards the land of the complainant party. Appellants are the first offenders. Hardeep Singh, has already undergone 5 months and 10 days out of the actual sentence. Suman is the servant of Hardeep Singh and has already undergone about 20 days out of the actual sentence. After the present occurrence there was no dispute amongst the parties. Parties are residing peacefully. Requested to take lenient view.
CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -10-
Learned State counsel argued that Hardeep Singh, was armed with Kirpan and injury was on the head, so intention was to murder. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to differ.
Admittedly, Hardeep Singh, appellant is the real brother of one of the injured namely Pavittar Singh. Dispute was regarding seepage of water from the land of Hardeep Singh towards the land of the complainant party. According to the prosecution story, Hardeep Singh, armed with Kirpan gave blows to the injured whereas defence version of the appellants is that complainant party had some dispute with Suman. Suman in the exercise of right of self-defence had caused injuries to the complainant party. Now the question is whether prosecution story is reasonable one or in self-defence injuries were caused by Suman? In case the injuries were caused by the appellants then whether Hardeep Singh, is liable for punishment under Section 307 IPC?
Both the injured appeared in Court and stated that Hardeep Singh, armed with Kirpan gave blow from its reverse side. Injured were medico-legally examined. 8 injuries were found on the person of Jaspal Singh, but all the injuries were declared simple in nature. Pavittar Singh, was also medico-legally examined and two injuries were noticed on his person. Only one injury was declared dangerous to life. Dr. Gurinder Kaur, PW-2, in examination-in-chief stated that weapon used to cause both the injuries was blunt. She further stated that injury No.1 was dangerous to life as per surgical opinion of Dr. J.S. Baath but Dr. J.S. Baath was not examined. In cross-examination, Dr. Gurinder CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -11- Kaur, admitted that injury No.1 noticed on the person of Pavittar Singh, was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. If appellants had the intention to murder then injury with a kirpan should have been caused from its right side. There was no reason to cause injury from the reverse side of the kirpan. All the injuries on the person of Jaspal Singh, were found to be simple in nature and only one injury on the person of Pavittar Singh, was found dangerous to life but as per doctor injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury was declared dangerous to life as per surgical opinion of Dr. J.S. Baath but he was not examined. Dr. J.S. Baath, was the best witness to state as to how injury on the person of Pavittar Singh, was dangerous to life. Whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature or not?
In 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801, "Nand Singh Vs. State of Punjab" conviction was under Section 307 IPC. Court opined that prosecution was required to prove that the accused had an intention to commit murder of injured and this intention could be gathered either from the act of the accused or from the impact of injuries. According to doctor, 9 injures were dangerous to life but he did not describe any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
In the present case also both the injuries on the person of Pavittar Singh, were with a blunt weapon but only as per surgical opinion of Dr. J.S. Baath, injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Dr. J.S. Baath, has not opined that injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Gurinder Kaur (PW-2), in CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -12- cross-examination admitted that injury No.1 declared dangerous to life, was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So, the appellants are liable for punishment under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
According to the prosecution story, appellants had caused injuries with their respective weapons. Suggestion was given to the witnesses that complainant party had altercation with Suman. Injuries were caused to Suman and in self-defence Suman had caused injuries to the complainant party. Suman was armed with dang but no question to the doctors who had medico-legally examined the injured that all the injuries on the person of both the injured are dangerous to life. Two persons from the side of complainant party were present at the spot and only one person from the side of the appellants was present at the spot armed with dang and had caused injuries to both the persons from the complainant party, then defence version seems to be not correct one. Incised wounds were noticed and they were not caused with a dang. 8 injuries were noticed on the person of Jaspal Singh-complainant and 2 injuries were noticed on the person of Pavittar Singh, so one person cannot cause 10 injuries to two persons in self-defence, when two injured persons are from the side of the complainant party and the third was the eye-witness. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then stated that both the injured started cutting fodder from the fields of the appellant party then Suman objected. There was some altercation. Injured had given blows to Suman and in self-defence Suman gave injuries with a dang to the injured. Suman was not medico-legally examined. No question was put to the Investigating CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -13- Officer as to whether he had collected MLR of Suman or not. If complainant party had caused injuries to Suman then cross-case should have been registered. If the police was not going to register the cross- version then private complaint could easily be filed but no private complaint was filed by Suman. When all the injuries on the person of Jaspal Singh and Pavittar Singh, cannot be caused with a dang then defence version is an after thought and was rightly rejected by the trial Court.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants was that Hardeep Singh, is the real brother of Pavittar Singh and the dispute was minor regarding seepage of water. Hardeep Singh, has already undergone 5 months and 10 days out of the actual sentence whereas Suman has already undergone about 20 days out of actual sentence. Appellants are the first offenders and after the present occurrence there was no dispute amongst the parties. Parties are residing peacefully. After going through the evidence on file, I am of the opinion that this submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants seems to be reasonable one. Occurrence was in the month of June, 1998, at that time Hardeep Singh was 52 years old whereas Suman was 28 years old and was the servant of Hardeep Singh- appellant. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken otherwise appellants are to become hardcore criminals if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I take lenient view and order the appellants to undergo imprisonment already undergone (in case of Hardeep Singh 5 months and 10 days CRA-S-911-SB of 2001 -14- and in case of Suman 20 days). Appellants are further directed to deposit ` 10,000/- each more as fine before the trial Court within two months, payable to the injured as compensation in equal shares. In case, fine is not deposited as ordered then the instant appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed and appellants are to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
For the reasons recorded above, CRA-S-911-SB of 2001, is dismissed with modification on the point of conviction and sentence. CRR No. 1459 of 2001, without merits is also dismissed.
February 02, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE