Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2011
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993
Date of decision 5.4.2011.
Kartar Singh and others
...... Appellants.
versus
The State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner-complainant.
Mr. A.S.Rai, AAG, Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Kartar Singh, Sukhmandar Singh, Chhinder Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh have directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.10.1993 passed by Shri J.S.Pamma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which accused appellants stood convicted under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 2
- the IPC ) and sentenced them as under :-
Accused Kartar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for U/s 307 IPC a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
U/ss 325/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Under Section 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Accused Chhinder Pal Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for U/ss 307/34 IPC a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
U/s 325 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Under Section 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Accused Nirmal Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for U/ss 307/34 IPC a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
U/s 325/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 3 rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Accused Sukhmander Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for U/ss 307/34 IPC a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
U/s 325/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
Under Section 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Though the accused were convicted under Section 323 IPC also but no order of sentence has been passed by the trial Court. All the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Harbans Singh had a land dispute with Kartar Singh accused pending in the Court. On 2.5.1991 at about 6.00 am, he alongwith his son Gurmit Singh went to cut fodder from their land. Shortly after them, Kartar Singh accused, his sons Sukhmander Singh and Nirmal Singh armed with gandasas, while Chhinder Pal Singh armed with Kassia came in 3511 tractor, which they parked on the road. Kartar Singh accused raised lalkara that the complainant party would not be allowed to escape. Getting down from the tractor, Kartar Singh opened the attack and gave a gandasa blow on Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 4 the head of Gurmit Singh from the sharp side, upon which he fell down prostrate. While Gurmit Singh was so lying, Nirmal Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on the right side of his back, Chhinder Pal Singh accused gave a Kassia blow from the wrong side on the right arm of the complainant. Kartar Singh accused gave a gandasa blow from the wrong side on the head of the complainant, upon which he fell down and while he was so lying Nirmal Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on his right knee from the sharp side, while Chhinder Pal Singh accused gave a push blow with the Kassia on his left ribs. On their raising alarm, Gulzar Singh PW came there, who raised cries 'Killed Killed' upon which all the accused escaped from the spot along with their weapons in that tractor towards the village. The complainant and his son Gurmit Singh were removed in the injured condition by Karnail Singh to Civil Hospital, Jaitu. As the injured were profusely bleeding and their condition was not good, they were referred to Medical College, Faridkot. There they were medico-legally examined.
ASI Atma Singh reached the hospital on receiving information and sought opinion of the Medical Officer regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Harbans Singh was declared fit to do so. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of complainant. which led to the registration of formal FIR. He then proceeded to the place of occurrence and lifted some blood stained earth from the spot, which was made into a parcel, besides a turban, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. On 6.5.1991 he intercepted Chhinder Pal Singh, Nirmal Singh and Sukhmander Singh Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 5 accused coming in tractor No. PCT 7549 driven by Sukhmander Singh accused. They were arrested and gandasas were recovered from Nirmal Singh and Sukhmander Singh besides Kassia from Chhinder Pal Singh. The tractor was also taken into possession. Kartar Singh was arrested on 9.5.1991 carrying a gandasa who was put under arrest and gandasa was taken into possession. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused.
On receipt of copy of MLR in respect of Kartar Singh accused, the Investigating Officer recorded his statement on 2.5.1991 containing cross version. After investigation, both Harbans Singh and Gurmit Singh injured were challaned under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC, which was also committed to the Court for simultaneous trial being the cross version of the main challan.
On finding a prima facie case trial Court framed a charge under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to establish its case, prosecution examined Dr.K.K.Aggarwal (PW-1), Dr.D.R.Garg (PW-2), complainant Harbans Singh (PW-3), Kesar Pal Singh (PW-4), Gurmit Singh (PW-5), SI Atma Singh (PW-6), Dr.Usha Kapur (PW-7), Dr.Jatinder Pal Singh (PW-8), Sukhdev Singh Patwari (PW-9), Constable Makhan Singh (PW-10) and closed its evidence after tendering into evidence certain documents.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations put to them in their statements and claimed that Nirmal Singh accused caused injuries to the prosecution witnesses in the exercise Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 6 of the right of their private defence. They examined Dr.H.C.Garg, (DW-1), Constable Jaswinder Singh as (DW-2), Nirmal Singh accused as his own witness appeared as DW-3 and Gian Singh Assistant Kanungo as (DW-4).
The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellants have preferred the present appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The parties have placed on record compromise deed alleging that the matter has been compromised. On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel was directed to verify the factum of compromise. The State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sucha Ram, present in the Court has stated at the Bar that the parties have arrived at a compromise and written compromise has been placed on the file. Learned counsel for the complainant has also admitted the factum of compromise.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of cross version. The complainant party in the present case were acquitted in the cross case and the State appeal as well as revision filed by the complainant is pending. However, since the matter has been compromised, so the said State appeal as well as revision petition filed by the appellants have been disposed of separately.
The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that so far as accused Chhinder Pal Singh is concerned, he has been convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It is Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 7 contended that appellant- Kartar Singh received as many as four injuries which have been proved by Dr.H.C.Garg (DW-1) and one of them is on the head and one on the chest besides one on right knee and right elbow. Gurmit Singh has also suffered two injuries, out of which one is on the head. The civil suit between the parties has been decided. The Civil Court found that complainant party is in possession of 12kanals 15 marlas of land whereas the appellants party are in possession of 3 kanals 13 marlas of land. It is submitted that occurrence has taken place in the portion of the land owned by the appellants. Even if, whole of the story is taken as gospel truth, in that case, it can be taken as a case of free fight. The injury falling under Section 307 IPC is attributed to Kartar Singh. He has already undergone sentence for few months during the course of investigation.
It is further submitted that in view of authority Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, sentence of the appellants can be ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise. So far as other three accused/appellants are concerned, they have not inflicted any injury under Section 307 IPC at the most, the injuries attributed to them are punishable under Sections 325, 324 and 323 IPC and can be held liable for those provisions of law. These offences are compoundable with the permission of the Court. Appellant Chhinder Pal Singh is a Government employee and as such the permission of this Court is required to compound the offence qua Chhinder Pal Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Nirmal Singh. So, permission be granted to compound the offence qua them.
Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 8
Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the said contention.
So far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned that cannot be allowed to be compounded more so after conviction in view of authority Ishwar Singh's case (supra). However, in view of the said authority, the sentence can be reduced keeping in view the compromise. Kartar Singh has been convicted under Section 307 IPC. So, his conviction under Section 307 IPC stands maintained. However, his sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone by him (which is few months).
So far as appellants- Chhinder Pal Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Nirmal Singh are concerned they have not attributed any injury falling within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. The question in the present case is whether a case of free fight is made out or not. In a case of free fight each individual is liable for his individual act in the occurrence. Chhinder Pal Singh has been attributed injury falling under Section 325 IPC whereas Nirmal Singh has been attributed injury falling under Section 324 IPC and Kartar Singh has been attributed injury under Section 307 IPC. It is a case of cross-version. The total disputed land was 16 kanals 12 marlas out of which complainant party has been held owner of 12 kanals 15 marlas and accused party is in possession of 3 kanals 13 marlas of land. The injuries have also been received by Kartar Singh and Gurmit Singh. So, I have no hesitation in holding that on the facts of the present case, it is a case of free fight and the applicability of Section 34 of the IPC cannot be ordered.
Consequently, Kartar Singh-appellant stands acquitted under Sections 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC, Chhinder Pal Singh-appellant stands Criminal Appeal No.390 SB of 1993 9 acquitted under Section 307/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC and Nirmal Singh stands acquitted under Sections 307/34 and 325/34 IPC and Sukhmander Singh-appellant stands acquitted under Sections 307/34 and 325/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC.
The offence punishable under Section 325 IPC against Chhinder Pal Singh and offence under Section 324 IPC against Nirmal Singh can be allowed to be compounded in view of Full Bench authority Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 2007(3) Law Herald ( Punjab & Haryana) 2225, Consequently, accused-appellants- Chhinder Pal Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Nirmal Singh stand acquitted in view of the compromise and on the circumstances mentioned above, the conviction of Kartar Singh under section 307 IPC stands maintained and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE April 05, 2011 sv`