Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khazan Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 26 August, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M)
DECIDED ON : 26.08.2013
Khazan Singh and another
...Appellants
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. J. S. Virk, Advocate,
for the complainant.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common judgment, I intend to dispose of two cases bearing Crl. Appeal No. S-1767-SB of 2002 titled as, "Khazan Singh and another vs. State of Haryana" and Crl. Revision No. 424 of 2003 titled as, "Khajan Singh vs. Sewa Singh and others", as both these cases have arisen out of the same judgment. However, for convenience the facts are being taken from criminal appeal bearing No. CRA No. S-1767-SB of 2002.
This is an appeal directed by Khazan Singh and Karam Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2002 passed by Shri Dhani Ram, the then Additional Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -2- Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Karnal, vide which appellant Karam Singh has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Whereas appellant Khazan Singh has been convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, both the appellants Khazan Singh and Karam Singh along with Sewa Singh, Diwan Singh, Saravjit Singh and Jatin Singh were put to stand trial for an offence punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC by SHO of Police Station Gharaunda, in respect of FIR No. 197 dated 24.05.1999.
The case of prosecution as enumerated from the statement of complainant Khajan Singh dated 24.05.1999 is that on 23.05.1999 at about 7/8:00 AM children of the families of accused and complainant had a scuffle while playing. At that time, complainant and his father Pritam Singh were present in Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -3- their house situated in village Ghari Khazur. So, his father Pritam Singh went in the street situated outside their house to separate the children. At that time, accused Karam Singh (present appellant) and his sons namely Sewa Singh, Diwan Singh, armed with burchis came there. Immediately on reaching there, accused Karam Singh gave burchi blow which hit Pritam Singh on the left side of his chest (bakhi). Accused Sewa Singh gave blow with the handle of his burchi lathi like which hit Prtiam Singh on the left side of his chest and accused Diwan gave him a thrust blow lathi like with his burchi which hit Pritam Singh on his right thigh. In the meanwhile, other two sons of Karam Singh namely Khazan Singh and Saravjit Singh and one Jatin Singh all armed with burchis also reached there. Accused Khajan Singh gave the handle of his burchi lathi wise which hit on the jaw of Pritam Singh and another burchi blow from sharp side knife wise which hit on the right thumb of Pritam Singh which he raised for his protection. Consequently Pritam Singh fell down and he was given kick blows and fist blows by Saravjit Singh and Jatin Singh. He raised noise which attracted his son Khajan Singh (complainant) and some other persons of the village who rescued the injured from the clutches of accused who ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The motive for causing injuries was that there was a dispute of one plot and one house belonging to the complainant's maternal grand father who died sonless leaving behind his two daughters. Thereafter Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -4- investigation was carried out and after completion of the same, challan was presented in Court.
Copies of challan, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the accused free of costs.
Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session as offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
Charge under Section 323/325/307/148/149 IPC was framed against all the accused to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Khazan Singh (complainant) as PW-1, Pritam Singh (injured) as PW-2, Prem Kumar Drafts man as PW-3, Dr. H.O.Bhatia, Senior Medical Officer, PHC Gharaunda as PW-4, Dr Sham Wadhwa, Senior Medical Officer, General Hospital Karnal as PW-5, Suresh Chander ASI as PW-6 and closed the evidence.
All the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them to which all the accused pleaded innocence and false implication.
Accused Jatin Singh, Saravjit Singh and Khajan Singh have added that they were not present at the spot. Karam Singh has stated that on 23.05.1999 at about 9:00 a.m while he was returning to his house after easing himself, he saw Khajan Singh, Pritam Singh and Karnail Singh were trying to get forcible possession of the plot and the house owned and possessed by Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -5- him on which he requested them to desist from the unlawful and forcible possession and assaulted by deadly weapons in which he sustained injuries on his body. On hearing noise, Diwan Singh and Sewa Singh reached there and rescued him and they have given injuries in exercise of their self defence.
The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence but they have not examined even a single witness.
The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, convicted accused Sewa Singh and Diwan Singh under Section 323 IPC and released them on probation whereas accused Karam Singh and Khazan Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, as narrated above, whereas acquitted accused Jatin Singh and Saravjit Singh from all the charges levelled against them.
Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2002, accused/ appellants Karam Singh and Khazan Singh have preferred the present appeal bearing CRA No. S-1767-SB of 2003 and complainant Khajan Singh has preferred criminal revision bearing No. 424 of 2003 for grant of compensation and for convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no doubt Karam Singh has admitted the occurrence but has taken a definite stand that injuries were caused to Pritam Singh in right of their self defence. It is further submitted that the appellants Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -6- were owner in possession of the plot and this fact has been admitted by Pritam Singh in his cross-examination. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the case of appellants in respect of self defence.
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
The occurrence has not taken place in the disputed plot but the same has taken place in the street. The case of prosecution is that there was a dispute regarding playing of children but on account of motive regarding dispute of inheritance of the property of maternal grand father, the injuries have been inflicted. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are aggressive party and has also rightly observed that no right of self defence has accrued as the dispute has not taken place in the disputed property.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that non-explanation of injury on the person of Pritam Singh creates doubt in the prosecution version.
I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same.
The learned trial Court has discussed about the injuries on the person of Pritam Singh and has observed that appellant party is the aggressor and as such, they have been rightly convicted under Sections 324/325 IPC. Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -7-
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that two of the accused have been allowed the concession of probation. There is no ground for withholding the concession of probation of the appellants. Karam Singh appellant has given his age as 75 years as on 27.08.2002. His age has not been challenged by the prosecution. So Karam Singh must be more than 86 years of age at present. Khazan Singh has also given his age as 32/33 years on 27.08.2002 and he must be now more than 44 years of age. The occurrence relates to the year 1999 and both the appellants must have settled in their lives.
It is further submitted that in authorities "Bali Ram and others vs. State of Punjab" 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 409; "Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana" 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 829; and "Raj Singh and another vs. State of Punjab" 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 861, the concession of probation was granted in respect of offence under Sections 323/324/325 IPC.
In reply to the above noted submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the trial Court should have granted compensation to the injured in respect of injuries sustained by him at the hands of appellants. It is further submitted that injury attributed to Karam Singh is on the chest of injured and is on the vital part and as such, the ingredient of offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. So, prayer has been made for convicting the appellants under Section 307 IPC. Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -8-
I have considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same.
Although learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that ingredient of offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but could not make out my pointed attention in respect of any injury which has been declared dangerous to life. Every injury on the vital part cannot be said to be dangerous to life, in the ordinary course of law.
The learned trial Court has dealt with every aspect of the injury on the basis of medical evidence on file elaborately. I see no reason for discarding this finding of the trial Court that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.
Consequently, prayer of the revisionist/complainant for convicting the appellants and others under Section 307 IPC is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
Now reverting to the quantum of sentence and regarding grant of compensation to the injured is concerned, appellant Karam Singh was of 74 years as per his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 27.08.2002. Now he must be more than 86 years of age. Both the appellants are not previous convicts and there is nothing on record that they have committed any offence for the last 12 years i.e from the date of decision of the trial Court. The occurrence relates to 14 years back. The appellant Khazan Singh is also more than 44 years of age. The trial Court has allowed the Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -9- concession of probation to convicts Diwan Singh and Sewa Singh.
In Bali Ram's case (supra), the accused were ordered to be released on probation in respect of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. In Ram Chander's case (supra), this Court has held that where grevious injury is not on the vital part and no special reasons were recorded by the trial Court for not allowing the benefit of probation and the petitioner is aged 67 years, in that case, benefit of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of the Offenders Act, shall be allowed. In Raj Singh's case (supra) out of four accused, two were released on probation in respect of offence under Sections 323/325 IPC. The remaining two accused were also allowed the concession of probation as they had no previous record.
So, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, the conviction of both the appellants stands affirmed but their sentence stands modified and they are ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the tune of `20,000/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of one year. The said personal bonds and surety bonds shall be furnished within two months from today. In default thereof, both the appellants shall be called upon to undergo the sentence awarded to them by the trial Court.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries, both the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of `15,000/- each as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C before the trial Court Bhatia Shalini 2013.09.10 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1767-SB OF 2002(O&M) -10- within two months from today. The said amount on realisation shall be paid to the injured under proper receipt and identification. In default of deposit of said amount, the appeal of both the appellants would be deemed to have been dismissed.
So, in view of the above discussion, the appeal as well as the revision, stand disposed of on the terms mentioned therein.
AUGUST 26, 2013 (K. C. PURI)
shalini JUDGE
Bhatia Shalini
2013.09.10 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh