Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001
Date of Decision: 8.9.2010
Tarsem Lal and others
... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Tarsem Lal and others preferred this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.1.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 19.2.1997 arising out of FIR 188 dated 30.9.1996 under Sections 307/323/34 IPC, Police Station, Kotwali, Kapurthala.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 307/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo as under:-
"Tarsem Lal U/Ss 307/34 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months.
U/Ss 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months.
U/Ss 323/34 IPC RI for three months.
Raj Kumar U/S 307 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 2 in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months.
U/S 323 IPC RI for 3 months. U/Ss 323/34 IPC RI for three months. Deepak Kumar @ Pardip Kumar
U/Ss 307/34 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months.
U/S 323IPC RI for 3 months.
U/Ss 323/34 IPC RI for three months."
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.9.1996 at about 5.30 PM, Vinod Kumar, complainant, along with Raman Kumar had gone to the house of accused situated near Chowk Ghanta Ghar, Kapurthala, to request for the return of payment by the accused. Tarsem Lal raised lalkara to catch them and teach a lesson for demanding money back. Raj Kumar was armed with an iron handle, whereas Deepak Kumar was armed with a gandasi. Ram Kumar gave blow hitting on the head of Raman Kumar. Deepak Kumar gave gandasi blow from its reverse side hitting on the back of Raman Kumar. Raula was raised attracting Udham Singh. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot. Raman Kumar was medico legally examined on 24.9.1996 at 6.15 PM. Ruqa was sent to to the police station and on receipt of ruqa, ASI Harbhajan Singh had gone to the hospital and moved an application requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not, but the injured was declared unfit to make statement. On 26.9.1996, Raman Kumar was still not declared fit to make statement. Statement (Ex.PH) of Vinod Kumar was recorded. Statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Accused were arrested. Raj Kumar suffered Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 3 disclosure statement and in pursuance of disclosure statement, he got recovered iron handle from the specified place. Sketch of weapon was prepared and the same was made into a sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression `JKS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Blood stained clothes of Raman Kumar were also produced before the police. Same were made into a sealed parcel sealed with seal impression `JKS' and then taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charged under Sections 307/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1Dr.Raj Kumar had medico legally examined Raman Kumar on 24.9.1996 at 6.15 PM and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. Lacerated wound 7 x .5 cm x bone deep on the left parital region of scalp. Fresh bleeding was present transverse in direction c/o headache and vertigo. X-ray was advised for skull/opinion of surgical specialist.
2. There was swelling of the base of left thumb.
Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised.
3. 15 cm x 0.25 cm reddish abrasion on the back of left side of chest. Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised."
After opinion of expert, Injury No.1 was found to be dangerous to life vide reports (Ex.PB) and (Ex.PC), whereas other injuries were found Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 4 to be simple in nature.
PW2 Dr. Gurbachan Singh stated that after examining the patient, injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life.
PW3 Udham Singh is one of the eye witnesses and stated that in his presence, accused had caused injuries to Raman Kumar.
PW4 Raman Kumar is the injured and stated on oath that appellants had caused injuries to him.
PW5 Vinod Kumar is the second eye witnesse. He has supported the version of Raman Kumar.
PW6 Dr. Gian Chand stated that on the application (Ex.PJ), vide report (Ex.PJ/1), Raman Kumar was declared unfit to make statement on 24.9.1996.
PW7 Inspector Navjot Singh had prepared rough site plan (Ex.PK) with correct marginal notes. He had also recorded statements of the witnesses.
PW8 ASI Harbhajan Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW9 ASI Jagjit Singh had also partly investigated the case. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the appellants was as under:-
"Tarsem Lal never owed any amount to Raman Kumar for Vinod Kumar. My father never took any loan from them. There was no occasion for him to come to the shop of my father Tarsem Lal. I, my father and brother Raj Kumar have been falsely involved by Raman Kumar and Vinod Kumar at the Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 5 instance of Udham Singh, PW. My father Tarsem Lal had a shop in the bazar which he intended to sell. Udham Singh was very keen to purchase it. But he was offering very less price. My father sold it to Sham Lal Kapur. Udham Singh felt insulted and nursed grudge. The very next day, he got us entangled in this case. Raman Kumar and Vinod Kumar are his close associates. I am an old charonic patient of epilepsy. I have been sick since 1988 and had been under treatment of different doctors of mental hospital, Amritsar and CMC, Ludhiana. I am incapacitated and unfit to weild any weapon or to commit any assault, muchless murderous assault. Shop of Raj Kumar my uncle and co-accused is at a distance of about 1- 1/2 km from the shop of my father, while the shop of Vinod Kumar PW is more than 500 yards from his shop. Raman Kumar has since gone to America. My father Tarsem Lal also had a dispute with Udham Singh regarding payment of grinding of flour. I, my father and my brother did not cause any injury to Raman Kumar."
In defence, DW1 Dr.Tarsem Lal Chopra appeared and stated that Pardeep Kumar remained under his treatment. Ex.DA is the prescription slip. Pardeep Kumar was a chronic patient of epilepsy.
DW2 Ajit Singh stated that Raj Kumar and Pardeep Kumar are the sons of Tarsem Lal. Shop of Raman Kumar was at a distance of about 400 yards from the shop of Tarsem Lal.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on the Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 6 file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.
After arguing for some time when learned counsel for the appellants failed to point of infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then requested to take lenient view because Tarsem Lal had only raised a lalkara. Raj Kumar was armed with iron handle, whereas Deepak Kumar was armed with gandasi, but blow from gandasi was given from its reverse side. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature, except injury No.1 on the person of Raman Kumar. Injury No.1 was kept under observation, subject to opinion of specialist, but no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to how injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Injured remained admitted in hospital but his condition was not found to be critical at any stage. Tarsem Lal had simply raised lalkara. Deepak gave gandasi blow from its reverse side. Injury punishable under Section 307 IPC was attributable to Raj Kumar, who was armed with iron handle, but no fracture was noticed. At the time of examination, there was no danger to the life of patient. Patient was simply showing the symptom of headache. No fracture was detected.
Learned State counsel argued that as per report of the specialist, injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Before the present occurrence, complainant party had no enmity with the appellants. So, there was no idea to falsely implicate the appellants.
PW1 Dr. Raj Kumar stated that he cannot tell whether injured was operated upon or not by surgical specialist. Without any fracture or Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 7 operation, injury can cause death.
PW2 Dr. Gurbachan Singh stated that on 24.9.1996, injured Raman Kumar was under his treatment. Patient was referred to him by Dr.Raj Kumar, EMO. Ex.PA is the copy of MLR. All the injuries were with blunt weapon. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the left parital region of skull. Injury No.1 was kept under observation subject to opinion by specialist. Ex.PB is the certificate issued by the doctor of Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. Ex.PB shows that all the injuries on the person of Raman Kumar were kept under observation. In case of injury No.1, x-ray shows no bone injury. Except 6th line in the letter (Ex.PB) addressed to SHO, PS, City, Kapurthala, no other cogent and convincing evidence that injuries were with sharp edged weapon and injury No.1 was dangerous to life. But after going through the evidence on the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the appellants carries some weight. Tarsem Lal was empty handed. He has not caused any injury to the injured or the witness. Raj Kumar was armed with iron handle. Third appellant Deepak Kumar was armed with gandasi and gave blow from its reverse side. After observing three injuries on the person of Raman Kumar, all the injuries were kept under observation. Injuries No.2 and 3 were declared simple in nature. Injury No.1 was on the left parital region of skull, but no report of the doctor that this injury was also grievous in nature and was declared dangerous to life. Specialist appeared in Court but he was not clear as to how injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Ex.PB is the x-ray report by the concerned doctor but injury No.1 on the person of Raman Kumar was found to be dangerous to life. But after x-ray, no bone injury was noticed. Report of surgical specialist is Ex.PA but the report is silent as Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 8 to how injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life. Ex.PD is the report on the basis of which, injury No.1 was declared dangerous to life but report (Ex.PD) is reproduced as under:-
"Injury No.1 of above said case kept for Surgical Sp. Opinion and x-ray skull. After observation, the injury No.1 declared dangerous to life in nature (post concussion)."
Bed head ticket (Ex.PE) is also on the file but condition of the injured was not serious at any stage. Length and breadth of injury was not given and no specific report of doctor that injury was declared dangerous to life. No fracture was noticed and the weapon used was blunt. Tarsem Lal was empty handed. If intention of the appellants was to cause injuries, then Tarsem Lal should have got some weapon.
In view of above discussion, instead of undergoing imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, appellants are liable for punishment under Section 325 IPC. Appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
Tarsem Lal remained in custody for about 12 days and Raj Kumar has undergone about 22 days. Occurrence is dated 24.9.1996. At that time, Tarsem Lal was 53 years' old, Raj Kumar was 29 years' old, whereas Deepak Kumar was 23 years. Appellants are the first offenders. Tarsem Lal had only raised lalkara, whereas one injury was caused by Deepak Kumar from gandasi from its reverse side. Two injuries were alleged to have been caused by Raj Kumar. So, ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken.
Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, appellants are directed to be released on probation on furnishing probation bonds in the Crl.Appeal No.95-SB of 2001 9 sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount each to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year before the trial Court within two months, failing which, appellants are directed to appear in the Court to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Payment of Rs.10,000/- deposited by each of the appellant is payable to the injured.
In the light of above discussion, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
8.9.2010 ( JORA SINGH )
pk JUDGE