Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satya Parkash vs State Of Haryana on 16 August, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No. 801-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 16.08.2010
Satya Parkash
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CRA No. 802-SB of 2002
Roshan Lal and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate,
for the complainant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. Crl. Appeals No. 801-SB and 802-SB of 2002 as both of them have arisen out of a common judgment and order dated 2/3.5.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari (for short 'Trial Court'). However, the facts are being taken from Crl. Appeal No.801-SB of 2002. CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 2
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2/3.5.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the accused/appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/506 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were order to run concurrently.
3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are as under:
"2. On 05/06/2000 complainant Amar Singh was deputed on watchman duty during night. He went to the house of Vijay son of Mool Chand to know about the particulars of his other counterparts, who are to accompany him on watchman duty, when Mukesh son of Murari Lal (PW) told him that all the persons, who had to give watchman duty, had already gone towards the house of Rama Nand Master. When complainant Amar Singh reached the spot and noticed a crowd there and they were beating to a person. Complainant intervened and asked those persons, as to why they were giving beatings, upon which accused Sajjan Singh, who was holding a lathi in his hand, gave a lathi blow on the head of the complainant, accused Sat Parkash also inflicted a lathi blow on his right hand, accused Dharamvir gave fists and kick blows and accused Roshan caused a blow with lathi on the head of the complainant Amar Singh, who then raised hue and cry. On CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 3 hearing the noise of the complainant, PW Rama Nand reached the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The accused persons had also extended a threat to kill the person, who would help the complainant. The matter was reported to the police by the complainant upon which initially a case under sections 323/325/506 IPC was registered against the accused persons. The injured was medico-legally examined. Injury No.1 on the person of Amar Singh complainant was declared dangerous to life. Therefore, an offence under Section 307 IPC was added. The accused persons were arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation of this case, the present challan submitted in the court for trial of the accused persons."
4. The accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 307/506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, namely, Dr. O.P. Dabas as PW1; Dr. A.K.Saini as PW2; Amar Singh (complainant) as PW3; Rama Nand as PW4; H.C. Randhir Singh as PW5; HC Nihal Singh as PW6; Dharam Pal, Draftsman as PW7; ASI Kanwar Lal as PW8; Dr. C. Sharma as PW9; H.C. Satbir Singh as PW10; Dr. Sanjeev Singhal as PW11; Dr.Ravinder Kant as PW12; Dr. Yogesh Pal Grover as PW13; ASI Sunder Lal as PW14 and Dr. Ajay Aggarwal as PW15.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded their false implication in the present case. However, in defence, CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 4 they did not lead any evidence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as noticed in para No. 2 of this judgment. However, accused Dharamvir was acquitted by the learned Trial Court.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal which was admitted by this Court on 10.5.2002.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the alleged occurrence took place during the night at about 11.00 p.m. when certain persons duly armed with lathis etc. were causing injuries to the driver of a jeep. This fact prompted the injured (complainant) to go to the scene to intervene and thereby invited the trouble for himself. He has further argued that the injuries have been caused by some unidentified persons whom the injured/complainant was unable to recognize. The appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of jealousy and rivalry.
10. Learned counsel has further argued that the medical evidence brought on record does not support the ocular version. The injured was discharged from the hospital after first aid but he got himself admitted in the Railway Hospital, Delhi, with a view to falsely implicate the accused/appellants.
11. It has further been argued that as per prosecution case, one Rama Nand was on the spot but the injured was removed to the hospital by his wife and not by said Rama Nand, PW4. Learned counsel has further argued that as per FIR, a large number of people were stated to be present but no one was named or produced in the evidence in support of the case of CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 5 prosecution.
12. It has also been argued that the Investigating Officer, who was In charge of the present case, has not been examined in the witness box and has been given up being unnecessary. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that there was any intention or premeditation to cause injuries to the injured (complainant). The injured intervened in order to save the driver of the vehicle and in the melee suffered injuries, therefore, no intention to cause injury even a remotely can be attributed to the appellants.
13. Learned counsel has further argued that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellants after holding them guilty in order to prepare themselves for their defence to be put up when the punishment was to be pronounced. In the instant case at the fag end of the day i.e. 2.5.2002, the court held the appellants guilty and on the following day by 10.30 a.m. the order of sentence was pronounced. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that there is no application of mind in fact no opportunity was given to the appellants to prove their innocence.
14. It has also been argued that as per the case of prosecution, three injuries were caused to the injured/complainant, whereas as per the MLR, only one injury was noticed. As is made out from the facts of the case, the complainant was the intervener and wanted to rescue the driver of the jeep, who was an important witness in this case. His non-examination makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the prosecution examined the complainant as PW3, who has given the vivid description of the entire occurrence. The accused Sajjan Singh gave a lathi CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 6 blow on the left side of the complainant, whereas accused Satya Parkash gave a lathi blow on the right hand. Accused Roshan Lal inflicted lathi blow on the right side of the head of the complainant. In all, three injuries were caused. In cross-examination, the complainant has clearly stated that he had received three lathi blows. He has also clearly stated that his hand became disabled due to lathi blow and as a result thereof, he was not in a position even to put his signatures on the complaint and he had to affix his thumb impression on the MLR, even though, he is an educated person.
16. Dr. C. Sharma, PW9, who treated the injured from 9.6.2000 to 13.6.2000, has clearly stated that during the treatment, it was found that the patient was having small haemmergic contusions noted in the right temporal left fronto parietal region with evidence of bifrontal extra axial collection along convexities. The C.T. Report of Lok Nayak Hospital dated 12.6.2000 also shows that there is a fracture in both parietal bones near the midline. Besides this, Dr.Sanjeev Singhal, PW11, has clearly stated that the injured was developing multi-organ failure. As per the investigation reports, his kidney and liver functions were deranged as is proved from discharge summary, Exhibit PL. The discharge summary, Exhibit PL, which also clearly revealed that the appellant had suffered injury on the left side as well as right side of the head and there was loss of power of the right wrist.
17. It is further argued that Dr. Ravinder Kant Manocha, PW12, who prepared the discharge summary, has stated that as per Exhibit PM, the patient was admitted with the complaint of loss of power of right wrist and forearm and the injured was having the injury on his head also.
18. Learned counsel has further argued that Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, PW15, has proved the report, Exhibit PO. This witness has also stated that CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 7 there are small haemmergic contusions noted in the right temporal and left frontal parietal region. This witness has further deposed that in the report, Exhibit PO, prepared by him, there is evidence of a linear fractures in both parietal bones with soft tissues swelling in the adjoining scalp. Thus, learned counsel has argued that it is established that the appellant had suffered serious injuries.
19. It has also been submitted that the appellant did not stop harassment to the complainant and his witnesses. One FIR No. 263 dated 19.11.2000 under Sections 323/324/325/506/452 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Rewari was registered on the basis of the statement of the appellant against Rama Nand and his son Narender Singh. After investigation of the matter, the same was found to be false. Even it was found that no fight at all had taken place and the allegations levelled by the accused/appellant were found to be false. Even the proceedings under Section 182 of IPC were ordered to be initiated by the police on 28.2.2001. The accused did not mend themselves and another FIR No. 147 was registered under Sections 452, 354 and 506 of IPC against Mukesh son of Rama Nand (PW4) on the basis of statement of Rozy, sister of Satya Parkash, the accused/appellant. In this case as well, no truth was found and ultimately the case was ordered to be cancelled on 17.1.2006. It has been mentioned in the cancellation report that FIR was lodged just to harass the witness of the complainant.
20. Lastly, he has argued that the complainant was mentally and physically tortured even after the incident and lodging of the FIR by him. The injured/complainant had to shift at Gurgaon because there was constant threats by the accused/appellants to him and his witnesses.
21. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 8 record with their able assistance.
22. From the statements of Dr. C. Sharma, PW9 and Dr.Ajay Aggarwal, PW15, it is clearly established that the injured suffered fracture in both parietal bones near the midline. From the statement of Dr. Sanjeev Singhal, PW11, it is clearly established that the injured/complainant was developing multi-organ failure. As per the investigation reports, his kidney and liver functions were deranged. From the discharge summary, Exhibit PL, it is established that the complainant received injuries on the left side as well as right side of the head and there was also loss of power of the right wrist, therefore, from the medical evidence, it is fully established that the accused/appellants caused serious injuries on the person of the accused.
23. In the instant case, the injured received serious injuries on the vital part, i.e., both sides of the head. Otherwise also in a case under Section 307 of IPC, the injury is neither necessary nor is a deciding factor. It is only one of the factors that the intention of the accused is to be seen from the surrounding circumstances. The factors determining the intention are -
(a) nature of weapon; (b) body injuries; (c) circumstances and (d) nature of injury. In the instant case, the seat of injury is very crucial. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra Yadav vs. State of Bihar & others, 2007(4) Rcr (Crl.) 860, has observed as under:-
"13. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Parsuram Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2004) 13 SCC 189] wherein, inter alia, it was held :
To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present:
(a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 9
(b) the doing of an act towards it.
For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence "of attempt to murder". Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. Some of the relevant considerations may be the nature of the weapon used, the place where injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries and the circumstances in which the incident took place."
24. The ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. The weapon of offence, i.e. lathi was recovered from accused/appellant Sajjan Singh. It is proved on record that one FIR No. 263 dated 19.11.2000 was registered under Sections 323/324/325/506/452 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Rewari on the basis of the statement of the appellant Satya Parkash against Rama Nand and his son Narender Singh. On investigation, the case was found to be false. Even it was noticed by the Investigating Agency that no incident of any fight has taken place as alleged by accused/appellant Satya Parkash. Even the proceedings under Section 182 of IPC were ordered to be initiated by the police on 28.2.2001. However, this did not deter the accused/appellants and another FIR was registered on the complaint of Rozy, the sister of accused/appellant Satya Parkash. This FIR was also found to be without any basis and ultimately the case was ordered to be CRA No. 801-SB of 2002 10 cancelled on 7.1.2006. It has been specifically recorded in the cancellation report that this FIR was got lodged only with a view to harass the witnesses of the complainant. In order to save his skin and honour, the complainant sold his entire property at Rewari and had to shift to Gurgaon as the accused/appellants extended constant threats to him and his witnesses.
25. In view of the above, it is established that the post incident conduct of the accused/appellants is also highly deplorable as the accused/appellants constantly caused mental and physical harassment to the injured and all other witnesses. It is also proved that the serious injuries were caused by the appellants to the injured/complainant, which are fully explained by the doctors on the vital parts, i.e., on both sides of the head, which resulted into derangement of kidney and liver functions of the injured and also loss of power of right wrist.
26. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 2/3.5.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court is maintained. The appellants are stated to be on bail. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand forfeited. They be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing remaining part of their sentence.
16.08.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No