Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtej Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 8 December, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002
Date of Decision : December 08, 2010
Gurtej Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.S.Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
for the complainant.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The appellants, alongwith Darbara Singh, were tried for the offences under Sections 307/325/324/323/149 and 148 IPC for causing injuries to Harmail Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Baljit Singh and Gurdeep Singh on August 30, 1999 at about 10.00 p.m. During trial of the case, Darbara Singh accused died and, accordingly, proceedings against him were dropped as having abated. Vide judgment and order dated 29.10.2002, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Sangrur acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC. They were, however, Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -2- convicted and sentenced, as mentioned below:-
i) All the appellants were convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each;
ii) Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants were convicted under Section 325 IPC whereas the remaining appellants under Sections 325/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months;
iii) Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants were convicted under Section 324 IPC whereas the remaining appellants under Sections 324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each; and
iv) All the appellants were convicted under Sections 323/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period during which the appellants remained in custody was ordered to be set off.
Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants filed the present appeal. Complainant Baljit Singh and his brother Harmail Singh also filed Criminal Revision 104 of 2004 wherein they prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction to the extent of acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -3- and also for enhancement of their sentences of imprisonment and fine. As the appeal and the revision have arisen out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence, they are being disposed of together.
According to the prosecution, on August 30, 1999 at about 10.00 p.m., complainant Baljit Singh, alongwith his brother Harmail Singh alias Kala, Gurdeep Singh and Nirbhai Singh, were going back after blocking the water course. When they reached near the fields of Gunwant Singh, they found Gurtej Singh and Gurcharan Singh appellants armed with barchhis, Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants with gandasas, Darbara Singh accused, since dead, armed with a soti one another person, who was later on identified as Bhola Singh appellant, armed with a barchhi present at the pucca water course near the bore. At once, Gurtej Singh raised a lalkara that Harmail Singh and others be taught a lesson for demanding land from them. On this, Dharamjit Singh gave gandasa blow from its sharp side which hit on the left side of the head of Harmail Singh. Gurtej Singh gave four barchhi blows on the head of Harmail Singh. Karamjit Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side to Harmail Singh hitting him on the middle finger of his left hand, as a result whereof Harmail Singh fell down. Dharamjit Singh then gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side hitting Harmail Singh on his right leg above the ankle with the result that his leg got fractured. When complainant Baljit Singh and others came forward to rescue, Gurcharan Singh gave three barchhi blows to Baljit Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -4- Singh on the right side of his abdomen just below the coastal margin, left elbow and anterior side of middle of right leg. Darbara Singh gave soti blow on the dorsal side of left hand of his brother Gurdeep Singh. Darbara Singh also gave soti blows hitting Nirbhai Singh on the upper side of left arm, left leg above the ankle and on his left side of abdomen just below the costal margins. Bhola Singh gave three barchhi blows to Nirbhai Singh hitting on his left eye, left shoulder and middle finger of left hand. Karamjit Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side to Nirbhai Singh on his head above the left ear. Nirbhai Singh also fell down. While they lay fallen at the spot, they were caused more injuries. When an alarm was raised by the complainant party, all the accused decamped from the spot while carrying their respective weapons.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he has stated that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 11 years. Out of the maximum sentence of two years imposed upon them, Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants have already served a period of about one year and five months while the remaining appellants have remained behind the bars for a period of about five months. All the appellants have remained on bail for a period of more than eight years pursuant to order passed by this Court on 5.12.2002. None of the appellants is a previous convict. Under these circumstances, the remaining sentences of imprisonment of the Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -5- appellants be set aside.
Learned State counsel, while assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that as the appellants had caused indiscriminate injuries to four persons on the complainant side, they do not deserve any concession in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the trial Court erred in acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC.
There was no categorical opinion obtained by the prosecution that any specific injury on the person of Harmail Singh was dangerous to his life. According to PW2 Dr. Ravinder Bansal, possibility of the injuries collectively on the person of Harmail Singh resulting in his death could not be ruled out. When explored by the defence, Dr. Ravinder Bansal stated that while giving the aforementioned opinion, he meant to say that injuries could be dangerous or could not be dangerous to life. He further admitted that had the injuries been dangerous to life, he would have declared the same in the medico-legal report after receipt of X-ray report. He also stated that there was no imminent danger to the life of Harmail Singh injured and if there was no imminent danger to the life of the injured, the injuries could not be described to be dangerous to life. In the presence of the aforementioned material available on the file, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC.
Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -6-
From the records, it is apparent that during investigation of the case, the appellants were arrested on 7/8.9.1999. Out of them, Gurtej Singh, Bhola Singh and Gurcharan Singh were released on bail on 25.1.2000 whereas Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants were released on 18.1.2001. Therefore, Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh, who were convicted for the substantive offence under Section 325 IPC have already undergone a period of one year four months and eleven days each whereas in the case of the remaining appellants, the said period is four months and eighteen days each.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the amount of fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon each of the appellants can be enhanced so as to suitably compensate the injured persons.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the various offences, as recorded by the trial Court, is upheld. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh appellants under Section 325 IPC and on the remaining appellants for the offence under Section 325/149 IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- Crl. Appeal S-1928-SB of 2002 -7- and in default thereof, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine, to be recovered from the appellants, Harmail Singh injured be paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- whereas the remaining injured persons shall be paid Rs.10,000/- each as compensation.
The appeal and the revision are, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
December 08, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1