Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pragat Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 6 February, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-06.02.2013
Pragat Singh and others
Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR
SANGHI.
Present: - Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG,Haryana.
for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Safidon, was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that Karnail Singh Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 2 (PW1) suffered statement (ExPW1/A) to the police alleging that on 18.03.2004 at about noon time, he had gone to pond for providing water to his buffaloes. At about 1.30 P.M., Sahab Singh carrying a DBBL gun, Hardeep Singh armed with a gun and Sukha Singh with a gandasa, arrived at the pond and exhorted that he (Karnail Singh) be set right. Upon this, their co-accused Kulbir Singh (declared proclaimed offender) inflicted a gandasa blow on his head and Pragat Singh gave Ballam blow on his left arm. He (Karnail Singh) fell down. Mohinder Singh, Joga Singh sons of Malook Singh, and Yadvinder Singh, all three armed with gandasa, caused injuries from reverse side on his right arm, right hip, leg, right arm/right shoulder and left arm. Gurbachan Singh and Kuldeep Singh intimidated him. On hearing the alarm raised by Karnail Singh, his brothers, Kala Singh and Rattan Singh, reached the spot and rescued him from the assailants, otherwise he would have been done to death. The assailants left the spot with their respective weapons intimidating Karnail Singh with dire consequences. The motive for causing the injuries was that a few days prior to the incident, children of the assailants had quarrelled with the children of Karnail Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 3 Singh . However, the said matter was compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat. The injured was taken to the hospital where his medico legal report was prepared and X-ray examination was conducted.
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners and their co-accused were charged under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, Complainant Karnail Singh as PW1, Umed Singh, Ahlmad, as PW2, Kala Singh as PW3, Pala Ram as PW4, ASI Dharambir Singh as PW5, Dr. Dhan Kumar as PW6, SI Prem Singh as PW7, and Rattan Singh son of Mangal Singh as PW8. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by court order.
When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. They did not lead any evidence in their defence.
After hearing arguments of both the sides, and Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 4 analysing the evidence available on records, learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, and ordered to undergo following sentences:-
Offences R.I. Fine (`) In default 148, IPC 1 year 500/- each 2 weeks 323/149, IPC 3 months 300/- each 1 week 324/149, IPC 1 year 500/-each 2 weeks 325/149, IPC 1 year 500/-each 2 weeks 326/149,IPC 2 years 1000/-each 1 month 506/149,IPC 6 months 200/- each 1 week
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners and their co-convicts filed Criminal Appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, challenging their conviction and sentence. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeals qua the petitioners while their co-convicts were acquitted. Hence, the present revision petition.
The Criminal Revision Petition came up for preliminary hearing before this court on 08.10.2012. On that day, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners proposed not to argue the case on merits. However, she submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioners was on higher side, therefore, notice was issued Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 5 with regard to the quantum of sentence only.
Though, the counsel for the petitioners have proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioners but to satisfy the conscience of this court, the material available on record has been reappraised and it is found that the learned courts below have rightly held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have rightly been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC.
While arguing on the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence had originated on account of a quarrel between children of the two factions; the petitioners and the complainant side belong to same village and after the incident approximately nine years have passed and no untoward incident had taken place in spite of the fact that the petitioners were on bail during the trial and pendency of the appeal. He further submitted that the petitioners were aged about 55 to 65 years and none of Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 6 them was involved or required in any other criminal case. He further submitted that though the injured Karnail Singh suffered grievous injuries but the same were on non-vital parts and he had not suffered from any disability etc. He further submitted that after dismissal of their appeals the petitioners have already suffered incarceration for a period of little less than six months, therefore, their substantive sentences be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State had produced affidavits of Superintendent District Jail, Jind, showing the period of incarceration suffered by each of the petitioners, which were taken on record on 30.01.2012. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a soft view, therefore, there was no scope for reduction of sentence in the case in hand.
After hearing both the parties, this court is of the firm view that it is a fit case where some concession in the substantive sentence can be extended to the petitioners on the following grounds:-
(i) the present incident had originated on account Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 7 of a quarrel between the children of the two factions;
(ii) the petitioners were neither required nor involved in any other case;
(iii) during the pendency of the trial and the appeal, the petitioners remained on bail and during that period no untoward incident had taken place in spite of the fact that the complainant side also belongs to the same village.;
(iv) the petitioners are aged about 55 to 65 years ;
(v) the petitioners are facing the agony of trial and appeal for last more than 8 years; and
(vi) the injured Karnail Singh has fully recovered and living a normal life.
As a sequel to the above, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of two years awarded to the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149, IPC, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. There would be no change in the order of sentence and fine with regard to the other offences. All the Crl. Revision No. 2932 of 2012(O&M) 8 sentences awarded to the petitioners shall run concurrently. Each petitioner is directed to deposit `15000/- (15000 x 4=60,000/-) as compensation before the learned trial court within two months of completion of their substantive sentence. On their doing so, the learned trial court shall issue notice to injured, Karnail Singh, and pay the amount so deposited by the petitioners to him as compensation. It is made clear that the present amount of compensation imposed by this court would be in addition to the amount of fine imposed by the courts below. In the eventuality, one or more petitioners fail to deposit the amount of compensation, as stipulated above, the judgments passed by both the courts below shall enure qua the defaulter.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE February 06 , 2013 Anoop