Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tej Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
Date of Decision: March 31, 2010.
Tej Ram and others ... Appellants.
VERSUS
State of Haryana ...Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants Tej Ram, Ajit Singh and Balwan against the judgment of conviction dated 23.3.2001 and the sentence order dated 24.3.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 307, 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code, each -2- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
of the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Code, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Code. However, all the the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.6.1995, at about 10/10.30 A.M, Vikram Singh along with his brother's wife Parmeshwari went to the fields to work there and also to give food to his parents, who had gone to the fields early in the morning. At that time, Ram Singh father of Vikram Singh was sitting under a `Shisham' tree and Smt.Misri Devi, mother of Vikram Singh, was collecting firewood from the nearby fields. In the meantime, the appellants appeared there from the room of their fields. At that time, appellant Tej Ram was carrying an iron `Dao' (an instrument for cutting fodder etc.) whereas appellants Ajit Singh and Balwan were empty -3- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
handed. The accused gave a threat to Ram Singh to teach him a lesson for arranging a Commission and also for giving an application for taking watercourse through their fields to the Irrigation Department. Appellants Ajit Singh and Balwan caught hold of Ram Singh whereas appellant Tej Ram inflicted injuries on the person of Ram Singh by means of `Dao'. The injuries were caused by appellant Tej Ram on the head, mouth, hands and other parts of the body. On seeing this, Vikram Singh and Parmeshwari came forward. The accused fled away from the scene by extending threats to the complainant party. Ram Singh was first taken to hospital at Jhajjar and thereafter to Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak.
Dr. Gulshan Arora (P.W.5), on 14.6.1995 at 1.55 P.M, had medico-legally examined Ram Singh and observed nine injuries on his person.
Injury No.5 on the person of Ram Singh i.e incised wound 8 cms x 2 cms bone deep on left occipito-temporal region was found to be dangerous to life.
The instant case was registered at the instance of complainant Vikram Singh, son of injured Ram Singh.
After completion of investigation and due formalities, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented by the police in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session.
Charge for the aforesaid offences was framed against the accused. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed a -4- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses including Chattar Singh (P.W.3), Dr. Pankaj Sharma (P.W.4), Dr. Gulshan Arora (P.W.5), complainant Vikram Singh (P.W.6), injured Ram Singh (P.W.7), Assistant Sub Inspector Dalip Singh (P.W.9), Dr. Ravi Kumar (P.W.11), Sub Inspector Daya Ram (P.W. 12) and Dr.Nidhi Aggarwal (P.W.13).
Statements of the accused were thereafter recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the prosecution allegations, pleaded false implication and stated that no such occurrence had taken place. The accused took the defence that in fact injured Ram Singh was sitting on the disk harrow at the time of sowing `Jawar' crop and as the Driver of the Tractor stopped the tractor, all of a sudden, he (Ram Singh) fell down on the disk harrow and suffered multiple injuries. The accused examined Baljit Singh (D.W.1), Lal Singh (D.W.2) and Siri Ram (D.W.3) in their defence.
I have heard Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case.
Complainant Vikram Singh (P.W.6) and injured Ram Singh (P.W.7) have completely supported the prosecution story, as unfolded in the earlier part of the judgment. The enmity between the accused and the complainant party has been proved on record by Chattar Singh (P.W.3), who was appointed as -5- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
Local Commissioner in the dispute between the complainant party and the accused party. Chattar Singh (P.W.3) stated that on 12.6.1995 i.e two days prior to the instant occurrence, he was appointed Local Commissioner and had given verbal notice to the parties through injured Ram Singh for the visit at the spot on 15.6. 1995. Since this occurrence had taken place on 14.6.1995, he could not inspect the spot. As noticed above, Dr. Gulshan Arora (P.W.5), on 14.6.1995 at 1.55 P.M, had medico- legally examined Ram Singh and had observed nine injuries on his person. Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal (P.W.12) had conducted x- ray examination of injured Ram Singh and had observed fractures of mandible and left ulna of Ram Singh. Injury No.5 on the person of Ram Singh i.e incised wound 8 cms x 2 cms bone deep on left occipito-temporal region was found to be dangerous to life. Three injuries on the person of Ram Singh i.e injuries nos. 3, 6 and 9, which were lacerated wound on chin, incised wound on left pinna cutting whole thickness of pinna and lacerated wound on left forearm, were declared grievous in nature. As noticed above, a very queer defence has been taken by the accused. It is alleged by the accused that injured Ram Singh was sitting on the disk harrow at the time of sowing `Jawar' crop. The Driver of the Tractor stopped the tractor, all of a sudden and Ram Singh fell down on the disk harrow resulting in multiple injuries to him. Harrow is a spiked frame or other contrivance for smoothing and pulverizing land and covering seeds. If a person falls on harrow, he cannot at -6- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
the same time receive lacerated wound 3 cms x 2 cms muscle deep on chin (injury No.3), incised wound 8 cms x 2 cms bone deep on left occipito-temporal (injury No.5 declared dangerous to life), incised wound on left pinna cutting whole thickness of pinna (injury No.6) and an oblique lacerated wound 6 cms x 1 cm muscle deep on left forearm (injury No.9). On the one hand, the accused denied the occurrence and, on the other hand, in the same breath, depicted knowledge of injured Ram Singh having received injuries in the manner suggested by them. The defence, on the face of it, is an afterthought. Injuries had been caused to Ram Singh a day before the Local Commissioner Chattar Singh (P.W.3) was to visit the spot and the accused did not take lightly the step taken by Ram Singh regarding the appointment of Local Commissioner. It shows that there was enmity between the parties. However, enmity being a two pronged weapon, could be a reason for falsely implicating the accused and, at the same time, it could be a reason for the accused to give injuries to Ram Singh. The evidence led by the prosecution shows that Ram Singh was inflicted injuries because of inimical relations between the parties. Some discrepancies and inconsistencies are bound to occur when the witnesses depose in Court, but, when taking into consideration the entire evidence the case of the prosecution stands proved, such discrepancies and inconsistencies hardly affect the merits of the case, as in the present case. Under the circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the appellants -7- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
had caused injuries to complainant.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned
trial Judge. The same is accordingly upheld. As has come in
evidence, both Ajit Singh and Balwan Singh were empty handed. The injuries had been caused by appellant Tej Ram, who at the time of occurrence was in his late sixties and now is at the fag end of his life. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the heads of the appellant for more than fourteen and a half years, I am of the considered opinion that leniency is required to be shown insofar as sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code awarded by the trial Judge to the appellants. As the injuries had been caused by appellant Tej Ram, his sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment whereas in respect of appellants Ajit Singh and Balwan Singh, who were empty handed and had caught hold of injured Ram Singh, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Since for the major offence i.e under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code, the sentence of appellants Ajit Singh and Balwan Singh has been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, their sentence for the lesser offence i.e under Section 326 read with -8- Criminal Appeal No.443-SB of 2001.
Section 34 of the Code, which is rigorous imprisonment for three years, shall also be deemed to have been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, the sentence of fine awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences and the default clause shall remain unaltered. The impugned sentence order stands modified accordingly.
With the above modification in the sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
March 31, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE