Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Singh @ Gogi And Another vs Unknown on 21 May, 2010
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007
| Date of Decision:May 21,2010.
Tej Singh @ Gogi and another
..............Appellants.
v.
State of Haryana
..............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr.J.S.Thind,Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.SS Patter,Sr.DAG Haryana
JASWANT SINGH,J.
Conviction and sentencing orders dated 6.11.2006 and 8.11.2006 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,Gurgaon have been impugned in this appeal by appellants Tej Singh @ Gogi and Jailor, whereby both the brothers were convicted under Sections 458/380/460 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as under:-
Sr.No. Name of the Sentence U/s Quantum of Sentence Appellant 1 Tej Singh 458 IPC r/w RI for 10 years and to pay @ Gogi 34 IPC fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years 2 Jailor -do- -do-Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007 2
Sr.No. Name of the Sentence U/s Quantum of Sentence Appellant 3 Tej Singh 460 IPC r/w RI for life and to pay fine @ Gogi 34 IPC of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years.
4 Jailor -do- -do-
5 Tej Singh 380 IPC r/w RI for five years and to pay
@ Gogi 34 IPC fine of Rs.1500/- and in
default of payment of fine
to undergo further RI for
one year.
6 Jailor -do- -do-
At the very outset, Mr.J.S.Thind, learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly stated at the Bar that he would not like to address arguments upon the conviction of the appellants as the evidence in this case has already been appreciated by a Division Bench of this Court in Hardwari v. State of Haryana, Crl.A.No.122-DB of 2001, decided on 28.2.2007, which was filed by Hardwari, co-accused of the appellants in this very case and while upholding the conviction of co-accused Hardwari, the learned Division Bench had modified only the sentence under Section 460 IPC, reducing it from RI for life to RI for 10 years while all other sentences were kept intact. By citing the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in aforesaid appeal, he prays for modification/reduction of sentence awarded to the appellants, being co-accused of Hardwari.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants by submitting that it is not a stray incident in which Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007 3 appellants are involved rather they have a long history of indulging in such criminal activities and a number of such like criminal cases are still pending against them, thus disentitling them for any leniency.
In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellants, we uphold the conviction of the appellants under Sections 458/380/460 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book as well as decision of this Court rendered in aforesaid appeal.
Now coming to the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants qua modification/reduction of sentence of appellants Tej Singh @ Gogi and Jailor, we deem it appropriate to have a close look at the mode and manner in which the appellants committed the crime resulting in death of one Shashi Bala, wife of the complainant and injuring four other persons before ransacking the house.
As per the prosecution case a Ruqa Ex.PY/6 was recorded on the statement of Jagbir Singh PW3 by ASI Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar on 22.12.1997. Pursuant thereto an FIR Ex.PC/2 was registered on the same day at 7.50 a.m., u/s 458 and 380 IPC. The complainant Jagbir Singh stated that on 21/22.12.1997 at about 3.15/3.30 pm, he alongwith his wife Shashi Bala and his son named Rohit, his father Raghunath Singh and mother Kiran Devi, nephew Vikas were present on that day. He alongwith his wife and his son were in a separate room while his father, mother and nephew were Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007 4 in the other one. Thereafter, he saw three persons in his room. They started beating them with their respective iron rods, pipes etc. Other three were in other room they were also beating his mother, father and nephew. (emphasis supplied) One of the assailants had a pistol. They snatched the gold ornaments worn by his wife. They took away her ear rings and as the rings worn by his wife in the fingers could not be removed so they chopped off her fingers and took away those rings in this way.(emphasis supplied). Thereafter they ransacked his almirah and boxes and took away the clothes, camera, tape recorder and some cash lying therein. His wife Mrs. Shashi Bala, died as a result of injuries caused by the assailants while he got fractures on his hand and his jaw was broken. Due to his fractured hand he could not sign the report which was thumb marked by him. He identified the accused present in the Court.
A perusal of the statement of the complainant and other incriminating material available on record, which we deem unnecessary to deal with in view of the concessional statement made by learned counsel for the appellants, it is amply clear that the appellants are hardcore criminals who committed the crime in a gruesome manner which may sent shivers down the spine of anyone. After going through the trustworthy evidence of complainant, who is an injured eye witness and has lost his better half in the occurrence, we have no sympathy for the appellants at all which may incline us to modify/reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellants. Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007 5
The learned counsel for the respondent State has also placed on record affidavit of Raj Kumar Hooda, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon, a perusal of which shows that appellant Tej Singh @ Gogi is facing criminal trial in as many as twelve cases for the similar offences like 302/458/360/460 IPC etc. Learned State counsel has further submitted that even appellant Jailor is also facing criminal trial in many such like cases.
This shows the bent of mind of the appellants. They, appear to be well organised in committmg such like crimes in a cold blooded manner which is manifest in the present case as they had the courage to chop off the fingers of lady of the house in order to get her finger rings. Organized crime appears to be their avocation and hence they cannot be let loose to unleash a reign of terror in the already crime riddled society.
The case of their co-accused Hardwari is distinguishable as the Division Bench, while reducing his sentence from imprisonment for life u/s 460 IPC to 10 years' RI has noticed that this was his first offence and he was not a previous convict. Moreover, he had five children and his wife had undergone mental depression during his stay in jail. However, the learned Division Bench kept intact the remaining sentences including fines under Section 459 and 460 IPC.
In view of the long list of pending criminal cases against appellants, they cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of Hardwari Lal's case (supra). Moreover, the learned trial Court in its order dated Criminal Appeal No.93-DB of 2007 6 8.11.2006 has noted to have already taken a lenient view considering their young age and family background. They deserve no further leniency. Accordingly,finding no merit in the present appeal the same is hereby dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Jaswant Singh)
Judge Judge
21.5.2010
joshi