Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Kumar Alias Raja vs State Of Punjab on 2 February, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998
Date of Decision:02.02.2009
Kulwinder Kumar alias Raja
.....Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 19.2.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby he convicted and sentenced Kulwinder Kumar alias Raja accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 452 of IPC with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.3.1996 at about 10/11:00 P.M, Karnail Singh PW accompanied by his grandson Jasvir Singh PW was proceeding to the Doctor for taking medicines as the former had suddenly felt pain. In the street, through which they were Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -2- passing, Sadhu Singh (deceased) being bachelor was residing all alone. When they neared his house, they heard alarm being raised in his house. When they reached in front of the door of his house, Kulwinder Kumar alias Raja accused, an addict was noticed demanding intoxicant pills from Sadhu Singh, who refused to oblige him in this behalf. On his such refusal, the accused started giving beatings to Sadhu Singh with pestle in his hand. On being raised noise by Karnail Singh and Jasvir Singh, the accused decamped from the spot. On the following day, Sadhu Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Moga, where he was medico legally examined. On 29.3.1996, he succumbed to the injuries. SI Satnam Singh PW recorded the report, which was thumb marked by Karnail Singh after admitting its contents to be correct. The said S.I. proceeded to the scene of crime along with other police officials, lifted the blood stained and simple earth from the spot, seized the same by converting into separate parcels, prepared the rough site plan showing the place of occurrence, the inquest report on the dead body of Sadhu Singh and arrested the accused on 4.4.1996. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. He committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.
On commitment, the accused was charged under Sections 304/452 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Karnail Singh complainant PW1, Jasvir Singh an eye-witness PW2, Dr. Navraj Singh PW3, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh PW4, ASI Deepak Singh PW5, Constable Harjinder Singh PW6, Gursewak Singh PW7, Head Constable Gursewak Singh PW8, Head Constable Sucha Singh PW9 and closed its Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -3- evidence by tendering the reports of Forensic Labortoary Ex.PU and Ex.PV.
When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He has put forth that he was arrested from his house on 28.3.1996 and was detained in the Police Station upto 4.4.1996, whereafter he was implicated in this false case. In defence, he has examined Amar Singh DW1. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed supra. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court in any manner. This being a Court of first appeal, it is required to appraise the evidence. Of course, as is borne out from the record, there was a delay of as many as 42 hours in reporting incidence to the police. But it is apt to be borne in mind that it is a case of one against one. The ocular account tendered by Karnail Singh, the real brother of the deceased as well as his grandson Jasvir Singh PW2 is consistent and credible. It is a celebrated dictum of law that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. On examining their evidence with due care and caution, it emanates that the same is intrinsically trustworthy, bears a ring of truth, besides inspiring confidence. On a careful perusal of their evidence, it emerges out that no previous ill-will, animus or motive has been Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -4- attributed to either of these to rope in the accused falsely. To say the least of it, on evaluating their evidence, it comes out that their testimony could not be impeached and they withstood the test of cross-examination in a successful manner. That being so, the learned trial Court was justified in placing abundant reliance upon such evidence. Sequelly, the conviction calls for no interference. As such, it is maintained.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made a misericordious submission to reduce the substantive sentence to the one already undergone.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission.
In re: Nadodi Jayaraman etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 164, the accused were held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The sentence was reduced to the already undergone by the Apex Court. In re: Sawinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 163, the accused had caused death of the deceased over a petty matter and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone. In re: Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 467, the sentence under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was reduced to the already undergone (13 months). In re: Allis v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 308, the sentence under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was reduced to the already undergone (1 year 11 months). In re: Chanan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 913, also the sentence under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was reduced to the already undergone.
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -5-
The appellant herein has been facing the agony of trial or ordeals of prosecution since March, 1996. Thus, this incident is more than 12 years old. He has been on bail since 23.3.1998 in this appeal. During this period, he has not in any way abused the concession of bail or indulged in any objectionable activity. He also remained on bail during the trial. Precedentially, the right of the speedy justice is a fundamental right of the appellant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any such event has taken place, which may prompt this Court to take a serious view. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the proceedings have continued for more than 12 years, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. I make an order accordingly. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
February 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No