Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaibir Alias Jasbir And Another vs State Of Haryana on 9 May, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.160-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 9th May, 2011
Jaibir alias Jasbir and another
... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed by Jaibir @ Jasbir son of Chander Singh and Parmod @ Mota son of Shilak Ram. They were nominated as accused in a case FIR No.114 dated 31.03.2001 registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat under Sections 186, 323, 333 and 353 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, which vide its impugned judgment dated 14th January, 2003, held them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and 333 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 333 IPC. Both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and one-and-a-half year under Sections 332 and 353 IPC respectively. All the substantive sentences of each accused were ordered Criminal Appeal No.160-SB of 2003 2 to run concurrently. In the present appeal, conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below has been assailed.
Criminal proceedings were set into motion on a statement Ex.PE made by Sham Lal PW-10, Inspector of Haryana Highway Patrol & Road Safety and Incharge of Traffic Aid Post Baburpur, District Panipat. He stated that he was posted as an Incharge of Traffic Aid Post, Baburpur, Panipat and the Highway from NFL to Madhuban fell under his jurisdiction. On the day of occurrence, i.e. on 31st March, 2001 he along with his companion police officials in a Government gypsy bearing registration No.HR-05J-0114 was on a patrol duty and they were checking the vehicles. At about 1.00 p.m. when they reached near the Ahuja Petrol Pump, at that moment from the side of Samalkhan one jeep came. Passengers were hanging outside the vehicle from the rear side. The complainant sent Constable Rajbir Singh and Head Constable Roshan Lal to stop the jeep. Constable Rajbir Singh went across the road and made the jeep to stop. He boarded the jeep and made the passengers alight from the vehicle. He was bringing the jeep to the complainant for issuance of a challan of the said vehicle when its driver gave a push to him, due to which he fell down on the ground and the driver of the jeep decamped from the spot by speeding up the vehicle. The jeep was not having any registration number. Constable Rajbir Singh suffered injuries, and therefore, he was taken to the hospital. Since driver of the jeep and his companion were not known to the police party, it was said that they could be identified in case they are produced before the police.
On the basis of statement Ex.PE, formal FIR Ex.PF was recorded. The same was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Along with the challan the accused were sent for trial. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Appeal No.160-SB of 2003 3 Panipat, which on 8th November, 2001 charged the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 186, 333, 332 and 353 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Injured Constable Rajbir Singh PW-8 was medico legally examined by Dr.Arun Sehgal PW-1 on 31st March, 2001 at about 1.10 p.m. He found following three injuries on the person of injured Rajbir Singh:
"1. A defused swelling was present around the left elbow. X-ray was advised.
2. A defused swelling was present around the left forearm near the wrist. X-ray was advised.
3. Multiple irregular red abrasions were present on the back of palm of left hand. X-ray was advised."
A radiological examination of the injuries was conducted and thereafter, it was opined that there was dislocation of left elbow joint with fracture of upper and lower end of radius.
HC Daler Singh PW-5 stated that on 31st March, 2001, Constable Rajbir Singh was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Panipat. This witness had gone there to record a statement of Constable Rajbir Singh, who was declared unfit. Thereafter, on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. he had recorded statement Ex.PE of Inspector Sham Lal, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex.PF was registered. He further stated that the investigation of this case was entrusted to SI Dharambir Singh. On 9th April, 2001, this witness had joined the police party led by SI Dharambir Singh and arrest of the accused Jaibir alias Jasbir was effected on that day.
SI Dharambir Singh PW-6 proved various facets of the investigation and arrest of accused Jaibir alias Jasbir on 9th April, 2001.
Injured Constable Rajbir Singh appeared as PW-8 and stated that on 31st March, 2001 he was posted at Baburpur Police Post, Highway Criminal Appeal No.160-SB of 2003 4 Traffic Aid Center. At about 1.00 p.m. he was on patrol duty with Inspector Sham Lal. From the side of Samalkhan a jeep was spotted coming. The said vehicle was loaded with passengers, some of whom were hanging outside the body of the vehicle. He further stated that registration number of the jeep was HR23A-9128. On the directions of the Inspector, this witness along with Constable Roshan Lal stopped the jeep. After the passengers alighted, he boarded the jeep and asked the driver and cleaner to take the jeep to the Inspector. He disclosed the name of driver as Jaibir. He further stated that Jaibir gave a push to him with his left hand and conductor of the jeep gave a blow to him and also pushed him with both of his hands, due to which this witness fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on his left arm.
The statement of injured Constable Rajbir PW-8 was duly corroborated by Ramesh Kumar PW-7. Inspector Sham Lal also appeared in the witness box in support of their testimony as PW-10.
In the present case, in the FIR name and parentage of the accused were not stated. Even no features regarding their identity were given. However, injured Constable Rajbir had identified them in the Court. Cross-examination of injured Rajbir was conducted but no effort was made by the defence to elicit as to how he knew the accused. Identification of the accused in the Court was accepted by the defence and no issue qua the same was raised. Constable Rajbir was indeed injured in the occurrence. He suffered dislocation of his left elbow joint with a fracture of upper and lower end of radius. It is not a case of previous enmity or ill-will. The accused in their youth and bravado had taken the law in their own hands. The complainant, who was sitting in the jeep and was taking them to the Inspector for issuance of a challan, was thrown out of the vehicle. Thus, taking totality of the circumstances into consideration it can be safely Criminal Appeal No.160-SB of 2003 5 inferred that the offences, for which the appellants have been charged, are made out against them.
At this stage, Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has stated that occurrence in the present case pertains to March 2001. A period of more than ten years has elapsed. It is stated that at the time of framing of charge, appellant Jaibir alias Jasbir was aged about 22 years, whereas appellant Parmod @ Mota was aged about 20 years. Learned counsel has prayed that sufferance of mental pain and agony of a protracted trial be construed as a mitigating circumstance. It is further submitted that the appellants are leading a life of honest peaceful citizens and they have not committed any such offence before or after registration of the present case.
Taking into consideration the age, antecedents and sufferance of a protracted trial by the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded to them under Section 333 IPC is reduced from five years to two-and-a-half years rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause along with the sentence awarded to the appellants under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are maintained. However, as stated by the trial Court all the substantive sentences of each accused shall run concurrently.
With the modification in sentence noticed above, present appeal is disposed of.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 9, 2011 rps