Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M)
CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M)
Baldev Singh and others Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana Respondent.
CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M)
Mehtab and others Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana Respondent.
Date of Decision March , 2013.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr. Amit Parshar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
( CRR No. 3182 of 2012)
Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate,
for the petitionrs.
(CRR No. 3487 of 2012)
Mr. YPS Malik, DAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Since both the Criminal revision petitions captioned above are arising out of the same impugned judgment dated 25.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby the appeal filed by the CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 2 petitioners impugning their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed.
Both the Criminal Revision Petitions came up for preliminary hearing before this court on 21.11.2012, when Mr. Gaurav Mohunta and Mr.Amit Parashar, Advocates, representing the petitioners submitted that they did not want to press the Criminal Revision Petitions with regard to the conviction of the petitioners. However, they submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners was on higher side, therefore, notice was issued to the respondent-State with regard to the quantum of sentence only.
Though, the petitioners have opted not to challenge their conviction recorded by both the courts below but to satisfy the conscience of this court, the material available on record has been re-scanned.
The facts of the present case in a nutshell are as under:-
On 10.09.2000, on receipt of a telephonic CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 3 message from Police Station, City, Kaithal, regarding admission of Neki, Om Pati, Rati Ram, Sube Singh, Lakshman and Gaje Singh in the General Hospital, Kaithal, A.S.I. Surender Pal reached the General Hospital, Kaithal, and after obtaining opinion of the doctor, recorded the statement of injured Neki. He stated that on 09.09.2000 at about 9.30 P.M., he was taking meal in his house and on hearing a noise in the street when he came out and reached near the house of his brother, Rati Ram, he saw that petitioners-accused Prithvi, Prem, Shamsher alias Shera armed with lathi, Gandasi and sword were calling bad names to Rati Ram. When he objected to the calling of the bad names, petitioner Prithvi inflicted a lathi blow on his right leg, Shamsher alias Shera gave a gandasi blow on his right arm and when Prem was in the process of inflicting a sword blow on the person of Neki, Om Pati came between them and the said sword blow hit on her right hand. Petitioner Prem gave another sword blow on the finger of right hand of Neki. Petitioner CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Shamsher alias Shera inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of Om Pati, as a result thereof, she fell down in the street but still petitioner Balwant inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Om Pati. On hearing the noise raised by Neki etc, his nephew Sube Singh came in the street and on seeing him petitioner Shamsher Singh alias Shera inflicted a gandasi blow while Baldev Singh inflicted a lathi blow on his (Sube Singh) left arm. Baldev Singh gave yet another lathi blow on the finger of the left hand of Sube Singh while Shamsher Singh alias Shera gave a gandasi blow from its reverse side on the back of Sube Singh. On receipt of the injuries, Sube Singh also fell down on the street.
Rati Ram was also caused injuries by the petitioners. Resultantly, he too fell down on the street near the door of his house. Petitioner Jai Karan also inflicted a lathi blow on the person of Rati Ram. On hearing the noise, when Lachhman and Gaje Singh arrived at the spot, the petitioners also caused injuries to them. In the meanwhile, Mahinder, Sat Pal and Ram Kumar reached the CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 5 spot and rescued the injured persons from the clutches of the petitioners. After causing the injuries, the petitioners fled away from the spot with their respective weapons and while going away, they intimidated the complainant side with dire consequences. The motive for causing the injuries to the injured was that a civil dispute was pending between Rati Ram and the petitioners and as such they (petitioners) were nourishing a grudge against him.
On the basis of the statement (Ex.PA) suffered by Neki, FIR (Ex. PW10/A) was registered. The medico legal reports and X-ray reports of the injured were collected and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.
The petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 6
PW1 Neki: He is the complainant of the case and reiterated his statement as he had disclosed to the police.
PW2 Om Pati: an injured eye witness; PW3 ASI Surender Pal: is an Investigating Officer; PW4 Rati Ram: an injured eye witness; PW5 Sube Singh: an injured eye witness; PW6 Lachham : an injured eye witness; PW7 Gaje Singh: an injured eye witness; PW8 Dr. Lajja Ram : He had radio-logically examined the injured persons;
PW9 Inspector Naresh Kumar: He partly investigated the case:
PW10 EHC Rajpal: He partly investigated the case; and PW11 Dr. Hazari Lal: He had medico legally examined the injured persons.
Statements of the petitioners were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence.
No oral evidence in defence was led. However, they tendered documents, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-6, on record. CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 7
After hearing the parties, learned trial court held all the seven petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:-
Under Sections Sentence (RI) Fine (in `) In default
(S.I)
323,IPC Six months 100/- 90 days
324, IPC One year 100/- 90 days
326, IPC Three years 200/- 90 days
506, IPC Six Months 100/- 90 days
All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, but the same was also dismissed and hence the present revision petition.
From the material available on record, it is found that Neki, injured had received injuries on his right leg, on the finger of the right hand, and on right arm. The injury on his right arm was inflicted by Shamsher Singh alias Shera by means of gandasi, attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC. Injured Om Pati had received injuries on her right hand, right thumb and right leg. The injury on the right hand was found to be grievous which was inflicted by CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 8 petitioner Prem by means of a sharp edged weapon. Sube Singh, Rati Ram, Lachhman had also received multiple injuries on their persons at the hands of the petitioners. The doctors who appeared PW-8 and PW-11 had fully corroborated the oral version of the injured-eye witnesses. Even the Investigating Officers had corroborated the oral as well as the medical evidence.
From the material available on record and keeping in view the findings of both the courts below, this court is also of the firm opinion that the petitioners have rightly been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506, IPC, therefore, no interference is called for so far as the conviction of the petitioners is concerned.
With regard to the sentence of the petitioners, their respective counsel submitted that the petitioners were first offenders. They further submitted that both the sides had received the injuries. The complainant side was also put to trial and acquitted by the learned trial court but the fact remains that the petitioners had also received injuries. They also submitted that on account of civil litigation between the private parties, the quarrel had originated. CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 9 They further submitted that during trial and appeal, the petitioners were released on bail but the said concession was never misused by them. They further submitted that for the last 13 years, the petitioners had been facing the agony of trial, appeal and revision. They further submitted that all the injured had received the injuries on the non-vital part of their bodies.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned courts below have already taken a lenient view so far as the sentence part is concerned, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any leniency.
Heard.
The present case has arisen out of version and cross-version. Undoubtedly, the complainant (injured) side was also prosecuted for causing injuries to the petitioners' side but acquitted by the learned trial court. The petitioners who are not the previous convicts are facing the protracted trial, appeal and revision for the last 13 years. Most of the petitioners are agriculturists. The quarrel had originated on account of a civil dispute. The injuries received by the six injured persons were on the non-vital parts. All the petitioners except petitioners Shamsher Singh alias Shera CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 10 and Prem had caused simple injuries to the injured persons. The petitioners who had caused simple injuries can be dealt with differently while considering the sentence part.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of each of the petitioner is modified and they are sentenced as under:-
Petitioners Baldev Singh, Mehtab, Jai Karan, Prithvi and Balwant :
Under Sections Imprisonment (RI) 323, IPC Six months 324, IPC Six months 326, IPC Six months 506, IPC Six months Petitioner Shamsher alias Shera: Under Sections Imprisonment (RI) 323, IPC Six months 324, IPC Six months 326, IPC One Year 506, IPC Six months Petitioner Prem:- Under Sections Imprisonment (RI) 323, IPC Six months 324, IPC Six months 326, IPC Nine months 506, IPC Six months
The sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial court and the default clause shall remain undisturbed. Each of the petitioners, namely, Baldev Singh, Mehtab, Jai Karan, Prithvi and Balwant are ordered to pay the compensation of CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 11 rupees Ten thousand each i.e. (`10,000/- x 5= `50,000/) which shall be equally distributed amongst injured Sube Singh, Rati Ram, Lachhman and Gaje Singh. Petitioners Shamsher Singh alias Shera and Prem are ordered to pay compensation @ `50,000/-each (`50,000/- x 2= `1,00,000/-) which shall be distributed equally between Neki and Om Pati, who had received injuries attracting the mischief of Section 326, IPC. Each of the petitioners shall deposit the amount of compensation of his share, as ordered by this court, within one month of his release from the jail after completing his sentence of imprisonment. If any of the petitioners fails to comply with the order passed by this court then the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court shall enure qua the defaulting petitioner.
With the above modification in the order of sentence and compensation, the Criminal Revision Petitions are partly allowed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE March , 2013.
Anoop CRR No. 3182 of 2012 (O&M) CRR No. 3487 of 2012 (O&M) 12