Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 28 March, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999
Date of decision: 28.3.2011
Manoj Kumar
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Ms. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
JORA SINGH, J.
This is an appeal preferred by Manoj Kumar, to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.10.1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa , in Sessions Case No. 140 of 1995/98, arising out of FIR No. 191 dated 2.6.1994, registered under Sections 308/34 IPC , at Police Station City, Sirsa.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Sections 308 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 31.5.1994, Ajay Pal- complainant lodged report with the police that on 30.5.1994 at about CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -2- 6.00 p.m. he was sitting inside the iron shop owned by Bhajan Lal. His uncle Ram Pal Singh, was also present there. At that time Suresh resident of Mal Godown Road, came to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Suresh had some altercation with Bhajan Lal and had left the shop by threatening Bhajan Lal with dire consequences. After some time, Suresh armed with a Dattar along with this brother Manoj came. Manoj raised a lalkara that Bhajan Lal, should come outside the shop and he (Bhajan Lal) is to be taught a lesson for not giving iron rods on genuine prices. Bhajan Lal, came outside from his shop then Manoj started giving fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Complainant also came outside the shop to rescue Bhajan Lal. Suresh armed with dattar gave blow on the forehead of the complainant. On hearing raula, Ram Pal Singh, along with 2-3 persons came at the spot and had rescued Bhajan Lal from the accused. After causing injuries accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapon. Injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, where he was medico-legally examined. Ruqa was sent to the concerned Police Station. On receipt of ruqa, ASI Shish Ram, had gone to the hospital. Application was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not? Injured was declared fit to make statement then statement of injured Ajay Pal Ex. PC, was recorded. Statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/3, was recorded. Accused Manoj Kumar, was arrested. Co-accused Suresh Kumar, was declared proclaimed offender. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against Manoj Kumar-appellant.
Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 308/34 of the CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -3- Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Ram Pal Singh, is the eye-witness. He stated that in his presence appellant along with his brother Suresh came to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Manoj gave fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Suresh gave dattar blow on the forehead of Ajay Pal-complainant.
PW-2 Dr. Rakesh Garg, stated that as per request of the police Ajay Pal, was declared fit to make statement.
PW-3 Ajay Pal Singh, is the injured/complainant and has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW-4 Dr. R.K. Bishnoi, stated that on 31.5.1994, he had radiologically examined the injured and depressed fracture of right side of frontal bone was found. Ex. PD is the X-ray report. Ex. PD/1 and Ex. PD/2 are the X-ray films.
PW-5 Bhajan Lal, has also supported the version of Ram Pal Singh, PW-1 and Ajay Pal Singh, PW-3.
PW-6 Jagdish Chander, is the formal witness.
PW-7 SI Ram Singh, is the Investigating officer and stated that on 30.5.1994, he had recorded the statement of injured in the hospital and after that the same was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.
PW-8 Dr. R.P. Dahiya, stated that on 30.5.1994 he had medico-legally examined the injured and found following injury on his person:
"1. Lacerated wound of size 5 x 1 cm was present CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -4-
on right side of forehead just above the right eye-brow, wound was bone deep and freshly bleeding. Swelling of both eye-lids was present. Fresh bleeding from the nose was present. X-ray was advised."
PW-9 ASI Shish Ram, had also partly investigated this case.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that according to the prosecution story, Suresh Kumar, had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal then Suresh Kumar, Proclaimed Offender had some altercation with Bhajan Lal. After that he came back from the shop of Bhajan Lal. After some time Suresh Kumar, along with his brother Manoj Kumar, had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Manoj Kumar had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal but no MLR on the file. Suresh Kumar, had given dattar blow to Ajay Pal. Appellant had no common intention CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -5- to commit the crime. Appellant remained in custody for about 4 months and 22 days out of the actual sentence and is ready to compensate the injured. Requested to take lenient view.
Learned State counsel argued that firstly Suresh Kumar, who is the real brother of the appellant had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. There was some dispute regarding purchase of iron rods. Suresh Kumar, came back from the shop of Bhajan Lal. After few minutes, Suresh Kumar, along with appellant had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Appellant had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Injured tried to save Bhajan Lal, then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on the forehead of Ajay Pal. Both the brothers (Suresh Kumar and Manoj Kumar) as per complainant came to the shop of Bhajan Lal, with a view to teach him (Bhajan Lal) a lesson. When Ajay Pal, intervened and tried to save Bhajan Lal, then Suresh Kumar (Proclaimed Offencer), brother of the appellant had given dattar blow. No doubt, appellant was empty handed and no MLR of Bhajan Lal, on the file but evidence shows that appellant had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Suresh Kumar, had given dattar blow to Ajay Pal. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to differ with the trial Court.
According to the prosecution story, Suresh Kumar, Proclaimed Offender, had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Complainant was present there. In the presence of complainant, Suresh Kumar had some altercation with Bhajan Lal, regarding purchase of iron rods. After altercation, Suresh Kumar, came back from the shop of Bhajan Lal, then Suresh Kumar, armed with dattar along with his brother Manoj Kumar had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. Appellant had raised a CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -6- lalkara to teach a lesson to Bhajan Lal and he (appellant) had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. When Ajay Pal, tried to intervene then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on the person of Ajay Pal. Defence version of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated. Now the question is whether appellant had the intention to cause injury to Bhajan Lal and Ajay Pal and actually injuries were caused.
Ajay Pal Singh, appeared as PW-3 and stated that he was present at the shop of Bhajan Lal. Suresh Kumar (proclaimed offender) came there and had some altercation with Bhajan Lal. Suresh Kumar, went back and came back armed with dattar along with his brother Manoj Kumar-appellant. Manoj Kumar, raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Bhajan Lal. Manoj Kumar, gave fist blows to Bhajan Lal. When he (Ajay Pal Singh) tried to intervene to save Bhajan Lal then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on his forehead.
PW-1 Ram Pal Singh, is the eye-witness. He has also supported the prosecution story by saying that in his presence appellant had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. When Ajay Pal Singh, tried to intervene then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on the forehead of Ajay Pal Singh.
PW-5 Bhajan Lal stated that he was owning a iron shop. On 30.5.1994, at about 6.00 p.m. Suresh Kumar, came to his shop and there was some altercation, regarding purchase of iron rods. He went back and again came fully armed with his brother Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar, threatened to teach him a lesson. When he (Bhajan Lal), came out of his shop then Manoj Kumar, gave fist blows. Ajay Pal Singh, present at the shop tried to intervene then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -7- blow on his forehead.
After the occurrence injured was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa and was medico-legally examined by Dr. R.P. Dahiya. Injury was noticed on the forehead of Ajay Pal Singh. Depressed fracture of forehead was noticed. Injury was declared dangerous to life.
Evidence on file shows that firstly Suresh Kumar had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal and there was some altercation. He came back from the shop of Bhajan Lal then Suresh Kumar, along with his brother Manoj Kumar, had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal. At that time, Suresh Kumar, was armed with dattar and Manoj Kumar, was empty handed but second time when both Manoj Kumar and Suresh Kumar, directed Bhajan Lal, to come out from his shop then he (Manoj Kumar) exhorted the co-accused to teach him a lesson. When Bhajan Lal, came outside the shop then Manoj Kumar, gave fist blows. When Ajay Pal Singh, tried to intervene then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on the forehead of Ajay Pal Singh. Injury was found to be grievous in nature and was dangerous to life. Injury cannot be self-suffered or self- inflicted. No doubt appellant was not armed but he had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Appellant along with his brother who was armed with dattar as per planning came to the shop of Bhajan Lal to teach him a lesson. When Ajay Pal Singh, tried to intervene then Suresh Kumar, gave dattar blow on the forehead of Ajay Pal Singh. Appellant is the real brother of Suresh Kumar (proclaimed offender). Before giving fist blows to Bhajan Lal, there was a dispute amongst Bhajan Lal and Suresh Kumar. To settle the dispute appellant along with his brother Suresh Kumar, armed with dattar again came to the shop of Bhajan Lal CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -8- that means appellant had the common intention to commit the crime. If appellant had no intention to commit the crime then there was no idea to accompany his brother Suresh Kumar, who is proclaimed offender. Instead of causing injuries with a dattar Manoj Kumar-appellant could request his brother not to cause injuries. There was no idea to raise a lalkara directing Bhajan Lal to come outside from his shop and exhorting the co-accused i.e. Suresh Kumar to teach him a lesson. Before the present occurrence, Suresh Kumar and Bhajan Lal, had some altercation. When he came back from the shop of Bhajan Lal then Suresh Kumar, armed with dattar came back along with his brother to the shop of Bhajan Lal. If there was no intention to cause injuries then there was no idea to carry dattar. As per altercation amongst Suresh Kumar and Bhajan Lal, appellant along with Suresh Kumar, as per complainant had gone to the shop of Bhajan Lal to teach him a lesson. No question of MLR of Bhajan Lal because only fist blows were given by the appellant to Bhajan Lal. Appellant had not given injuries to Ajay Pal Singh but in the presence of appellant, Suresh Kumar armed with dattar had given blow to Ajay Pal Singh. So both the brothers had common intention to commit the crime.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that appellant had given fist blows to Bhajan Lal. Appellant is the first offender and is ready to compensate the injured. No doubt, appellant is the first offender and he is the real brother of Suresh Kumar, who is proclaimed offender. As per custody certificate, appellant has already undergone 4 months and 29 days out of the actual sentence. Occurrence was in the month of May, 1994. Appellant CRA-S-1043-SB of 1999 -9- was the first offender and is to support his old mother. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken, otherwise appellant would become hardcore criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and nature of offence, I take lenient view. Appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (4 months and 29 days). Fine maintained.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
March 28, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE