Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mihan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 February, 2012
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001
Date of decision: February 01, 2012.
Mihan Singh
... Appellant (s)
v.
State of Haryana
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri J.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
Present appeal has been filed by Mihan Singh son of Santu Ram. He was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.314 dated 30.8.1997, registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind, under Sections 332, 333, 353, 186, 109, 506, 427 IPC. The above stated FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to Additional Sessions Judge, Jind who, vide impugned judgment dated 14.8.2001, held the appellant guilty of offence under Sections 332, 333, 353, 427 and 506 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:-
Under Section Sentence
333 IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-
in default, further RI for six months
Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 2 :-
332 IPC RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-
in default, further RI for three months
353 IPC RI for 1-1/2 years and fine of
Rs.200/- in default, further RI for
three months
427 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.200/-
in default, further RI for two months
506 IPC RI for 1-1/2 years and fine of
Rs.200/- in default, further RI for
two months
Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 30.8.1997, ASI Raj Kumar along with other police officials was present in village Uchana Khurd on patrol duty. He was accompanied by Constable Rajender Singh PW5 and Constable Vijender Singh PW4. The police party headed by ASI Kali Ram reached village Uchana. Kali Ram was entrusted with an application submitted by Dhupa son of Sadhu. ASI Raj Kumar, HC Azad Singh, Constable Rajender Singh also accompanied ASI Kali Ram at his request to raid the houses of the accused persons named in the complaint, viz, Raja son of Basau, Basau son of Badau, and Pala son of Basau. The police party reached at the house of Pala and Basau and they were found present there. They were directed by the police party to accompany them. However, they refused. At that time, accused Mihan Singh came present, questioned the police officials regarding their visit and demanded the application. ASI Raj Kumar showed the application and copy of the medico-legal report to Mihan Singh. The accused at that time had torn off both the documents and asked the police party to go back. He asked the police personnel to call the police officer who had sent them. Thereafter the Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 3 :- accused brought a lathi from his house and gave a lathi blow on the right hand of Vijender and inflicted another blow on his right shoulder and upper part of left leg. The accused also inflicted more blows on right shoulder and the calf muscle of left leg of Rajender Singh. On the asking of the accused, persons from the general public gathered there and pelted stones at the police party. The police party apprehended the accused and thereafter medico-legal examination of Constables Rajender Singh PW5 and Vijender Singh PW4 was conducted by PW1 Dr. R.K. Singla. Dr. R.K. Singla had found three injuries on the person of Constable Vijender Singh. Injuries No.1 and 2 were declared simple whereas injury No.3 was a lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the right thumb. Injury No.3 was declared grievous. Rajender Singh Constable had also suffered two injuries. Both were declared simple and were caused by blunt weapon. On the same day, i.e., 30.8.1997 at about 3.55 p.m., accused appellant Mihan Singh was also examined. Two injuries were found on his person. Injury No.1 was abrasion below the eye and injury No.2 a swelling on the foot.
Shri J.S. Bedi, Counsel for the appellant, contends that injury No.2 on the person of accused appellant Mihan Singh was later declared as grievous by DW1 Dr. Subhash Gupta.
Prosecution examined PW2 Dhupa son of Sadhu Ram who stated that he had a dispute with Basau about one and a half years ago and he had filed an application against Basau along with MLR. The application was proved as Ex.PJ and MLR as Ex.PF. In cross examination, this witness stated that five Constables, two Head Constables and two Thanedars came to village to enquire about the application. The police officials were also having fire arms and the quarrel between the accused and the police party Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 4 :- took place at about 10/11 a.m. PW3 Giasu Panch stated that about 1-1/2 years ago, the police came to the village to enquire about the application filed by Dhupa against Basau but accused Mihan Singh intervened and told the police that he would not allow Basau to accompany the police and, thus, the quarrel ensued between the accused and the police party and the accused has caused injuries to two Constables with a lathi. Vijender Singh PW4 and Rajender Singh PW5 have also narrated the occurrence and they have stated that they were caused injuries by the appellant. PW6 Inspector Sukhraj Singh has prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW7 Dr. Subhash Gupta SMO had conducted radiological examination of Constable Vijender Singh and had declared injury No.3 as grievous. PW8 Balwant Singh Draftsman had prepared the site plan Ex.PO. PW9 Virender Singh SI on receipt of ruqa Ex.PK/1 had recorded formal FIR PK/2. PW10 HC Attar Singh had proved the posting of Constables Vijender Singh and Rajender Singh at the relevant time in Police Station Uchana. PW11 MHC Balwan Singh had proved the DDR and the entry made therein regarding the visit of the police party Ex.PR and PR/1. PW12 Constable Dilbagh Singh had mechanically examined the gypsy and proved his report Ex.PS. PW13 ASI Raj Kumar had proved the various facets of the investigation and also stated that he had witnessed the occurrence.
Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances and had given the following version:-
"It is a false case. PWs have deposed falsely against me because they were inimical towards me because I have filed a complaint against the police officials to the higher officers. I Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 5 :- did not cause any injury to any police official and I have been falsely implicated in this case because I have filed a complaint against the officials of PS Uchana. Dhupa and Giasu etc. are inimical towards me due to party faction in village.
I filed a private complaint u/s 7 of Untouchability Act and u/s 323, 324, 506, 342, 343, 384 IPC against Bhim Singh SI/SHO, PS Uchana and he was summoned by the court under the above said sections to face trial by Shri S.K. Goyal, then SDJM, Narwana. The opposite party got a case registered against my brother Suraj Mal u/s 25 of the Arms Act and the present witnesses Giasu and Hari Kishan etc. were witnesses in that case also and my brother was acquitted vide order dated 25.10.97.
The opposite party gave injuries to me and Giasu and Hari Kishan etc. were convicted by the court of JMIC, Narwana and their appeal also failed. They formed a strong party and have falsely implicated me in the present case.
I have also filed a complaint against the doctor who has appeared in this case as a witness against me."
In defence, DW1 Dr. Subhash Gupta was examined who proved radiological report Ex.DB whereby fracture was found on the left foot of Mihan Singh accused. DW2 Dr. R.K. Singla had also medico-legally examined the accused and found six injuries including diffuse swelling on left foot.
I have heard Shri J.S. Bedi, Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 6 :-
PW4 Vijender Singh complainant and PW5 Constable Rajender Singh have stated in categoric terms that they were caused injuries by the appellant Mihan Singh. Giasu Panch PW3 and Dhupa PW2 have also corroborated their version. Medical evidence also lends corroboration to the ocular version unfolded by the witnesses. ASI Raj Kumar PW13 has also stated that he was eye witness to the occurrence. The testimony of these witnesses is crucial on the ground that the appellant had filed a private complaint against the police officials in which they were summoned to stand trial. PW2 Dhupa had deposed that he had filed an application along with his medico-legal report against one Basau and the police officials, for the investigation of that application, had gone to the village of the accused. There is enough documentary evidence on record to show that the police party had visited the village of the accused for investigation of the application received from Dhupa. It has also come in evidence that Raja and Pala were present at the spot when the occurrence had ensued. No witness has been examined by the defence in support of the version propounded by the accused. Hence, bald assertion that since the accused appellant had filed a complaint, therefore, police officials self-suffered injuries and have falsely implicated him, cannot be accepted. PW2 Dhupa and PW3 Giasu Panch had stated that quarrel ensued between the police Constables and the accused. Accused has also been medico-legally examined at the time when the injured Constables Rajender Singh and Vijender Singh were examined. Thus, PW5 Rajender Singh and PW4 Vijender Singh and accused have suffered injuries at the same time. In the occurrence both the sides have suffered injuries. Simple denial of the occurrence by the appellant makes his version doubtful. Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 7 :-
Having held that the occurrence had taken place and the injuries were suffered by two witnesses, Vijender Singh and Rajender Singh, at the hands of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 333, 332, 353, 427, 506 IPC.
PW4 Vijender singh had suffered three injuries. Injury No.1 and 2 were contusions on the non vital parts of the body. Injury No.3 is a fracture of the thumb. The injuries suffered by Rajender Singh are also simple and on non-vital parts of the body. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the sentence of 7 years awarded under Section 333 IPC is highly excessive. Furthermore, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1997, and the appellant is in the corridors of the courts for the last more than 14 years. This Court has taken a view that sufferance of protracted trial can be construed as one of the mitigating circumstances. Even otherwise, it looks probable that when the police party went to call Basau, the accused who came there had an altercation with the police officials, therefore, at the spur of moment, without any premeditation, in the heat of passion, occurrence had ensued. The appellant has also suffered injuries in the occurrence.
Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, sentence of 7 years awarded for the offence under Section 333 IPC is not justified and hence, the same is reduced to three years RI. However, sentence of fine and default clause is maintained. The sentences awarded for various other offence are also maintained. As ordered by the trial court, all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal No.973-SB of 2001 -: 8 :-
Subject to the modification in sentence, the present appeal is dismissed.
[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] February 01, 2012. Judge kadyan