Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 2 September, 2014
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Lisa Gill
204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -1
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-779-DB of 2014
Date of Decision: 02.09.2014
Raj Singh and others
...... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
-.-
Present: Mr. Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 6.
*****
S.S. SARON, J.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate has put in appearance for respondents No.2 to 6. The Vakalatnamas filed by him in Court today on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3; respondents No.4 and 5 and respondent No.6 are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal has been filed by the appellants Raj Singh, Karni Singh and Beant Singh against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2014, whereby, the respondents No.2 to 6 have been convicted for various offences and sentenced. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The details of the sentences that have been imposed are as follows:-
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -2
-2 -
Name of the Offence Sentence awarded convict Dalel Singh U/S 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
Respondent and in default of payment of No.2 fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment one month.
U/S 323 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 Section 149 of IPC months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.
U/S 324 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for one Section 149 of IPC year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
U/S 452 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
U/S 148 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
Gurmit Singh U/S 307 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six
years and to pay fine of
Respondent Rs.1,000/- and in default of
No.6 payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 3 months.
U/S 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
U/S 323 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
Section 149 of IPC months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -3
-3 -
U/S 324 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for one Section 149 IPC year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
U/S 452 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
U/S 148 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
Surjit Singh U/S 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
Respondent and in default of payment of fine
No.6 to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
U/S 323 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
Section 149 of IPC months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.
U/S 324 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for one Section 149 of IPC year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
U/S 452 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
U/S 326 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
U/S 148 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further under go rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -4
-4 -
Name of Offence Sentence awarded
convict
Jasvir Singh U/S 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three
years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
Respondent and in default of payment of fine
No.5 to further under go rigorous
imprisonment one month.
U/S 323 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
with Section 149 months and to pay fine of
of IPC Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one week.
U/S 324 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for one
Section 149 of IPC year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
U/S 452 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
U/S 326 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
U/S 148 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
Malkit Singh U/S 325 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
Respondent and in default of payment of fine
No.4 to further under go rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
U/S 323 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for 6
Section 149 of IPC months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment one week.
U/S 324 read with Rigorous Imprisonment for one Section 149 of IPC year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -5
-5 -
Name of Offence Sentence awarded convict U/S 452 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
U/S 148 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
The appellants in their prayer clause in the grounds of appeal have stated has follows:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the sentence awarded to the respondent no.2 to 6 vide judgement and order of sentence dated 26.03.2014 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda may kindly be modified being inadequate.
It is further prayed that the compensation to the appellants/victims may kindly be granted for an amount to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court."
A perusal of the above shows that a two fold prayer has been made by the appellants regarding inadequate sentences to respondents No.2 to 6, besides for grant of compensation. Insofar as the inadequate sentences are concerned, the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) may be noticed, which reads as follows:-
XX XX XX XX XX "Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -6
-6 -
inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court."
XX XX XX XX XX In terms of the above proviso, the 'victim' has a right to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. There is no provision for filing an appeal by a 'victim' against inadequate sentence. Besides, a 'victim' can also make a prayer for inadequate compensation. The Supreme Court in the case of "National Delhi", 2010(4) National Commission of Women Versus State of Delhi", RCR (Criminal) 758 has held that the proviso inserted to Section 372 Cr.P.C. with effect from 31.12.2009 gives a limited right to the 'victim' to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a Criminal Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of inadequate compensation. It does not envisage an appeal against inadequate sentence. Therefore, the prayer for enhancement of sentence being inadequate is not tenable.
Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it may be noticed that the learned trial Court has not granted any compensation to the appellants. Respondents No.2 to 5 have filed Criminal Appeal No.S-1518-SB of 2014, which has been admitted on 25.07.2014. Gurmit Singh (respondent No.6) has filed Criminal Appeal No.S-1871- SB of 2014, which was admitted on 07.05.2014. The appellants, if they are 'victims' may if so advised make a prayer for grant of compensation in the said appeals in accordance with law as an appeal is a continuation of the initial proceedings. However, there being no compensation awarded, it cannot per se be said that inadequate compensation has been awarded so as to entitle the appellants to file an appeal.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -7
-7 -
Learned counsel for the appellants during the course of hearing submits that in fact the acquittal of respondents for the offence punishable under Section 450 Indian Penal Code ('IPC'-for short) for which a charge was framed against them is erroneous. It is submitted that the accused have wrongly been acquitted for the offence under Section 450 IPC.
It may be noticed that there is no prayer in the prayer clause against the acquittal of respondents No.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC. Neither has any ground been urged in this regard in the memo of appeals. It is only during the course of hearing when the Court observed that an appeal would not be maintainable against inadequate sentence, it appears such a contention has been raised. In any case, it may be noticed that the learned trial Court considered the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that all the accused (respondents No.2 to 6) entered in the house of Raj Singh (appellant No.1) in order to commit the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC so they committed the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC.
FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Raj Singh (appellant No.1). He has stated that he was practicing as CMS&ED. His nephew namely Beant Singh son of Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) and brother-in-law of Beant Singh (appellant No.3) namely Karni Singh (appellant No.2) were taking their meal at his (Raj Singh's) house at Village Jeond, Police Station, Rampura, District Bathinda. At about 1.30 pm, Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) armed with 'Dah', Surjit Singh (respondent No.3) armed with a small sword, Gurmit Singh (respondent No.6) armed with a 'kirch', Jasvir Singh (respondent No.5) armed with a 'takua' came on their motorcycles. Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) inflicted a 'kulhari' blow from its reverse side on the GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -8
-8 -
complainant Raj Singh (appellant No.1). The complainant in order to save himself raised his hands and the 'kulhari' blow landed on his wrist. Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) inflicted another blow, which hit on his (Raj Singh's) left hand. Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) also gave two other blows with the 'kulhari' on the left wrist of Raj Singh (appellant No.1). Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) gave another blow on the head of Raj Singh. Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) gave a 'dah' blow, Surjit Singh (respondent No.3) inflicted a 'kirpan' blow, Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) inflicted a 'kirch' blow on the person of Karni Singh (appellant No.2). Jasvir Singh (respondent No.5) inflicted a 'takua' blow on Beant Singh (appellant No.3). They raised an alarm. Meanwhile, wife of complainant Raj Singh namely Paramjit Kaur and wife of Beant Singh (appellant No.3) namely Jaswinder Kaur came there. They fell on the persons of the injured. On hearing noise, the villagers also gathered there. All the accused (respondents No.2 to 6) ran away from the scene with their respective weapons. They left behind a motorcycle in the house of the complainant. Satnam Singh son of Chet Singh, resident of Village Jeond took the injured to the hospital. The motive behind the incident was that Beant Singh (appellant No.3) nephew of the complainant Raj Singh (appellant No.1) was not on speaking terms with his father Dalel Singh (respondent No.2). Beant Singh (appellant No.3) had good relations with the complainant Raj Singh (appellant No.1). Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) was annoyed as to why Beant Singh (appellant No.3) had good relations with the complainant Raj Singh. Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) was residing with his family at Village Mandi Kalan. All the accused caused injuries to the complainant Raj Singh (appellant No.1).
In respect of the offence under Section 450 IPC, the learned trial Court noticed the provisions of Sections 450 and 452 IPC. The question GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -9
-9 -
for determination, it was observed was whether the accused (respondents No.2 to 6) committed the offence punishable under Section 450 or 452 IPC. Section 450 IPC, it was noticed provided for house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life. Section 452 IPC, it was noticed provided for house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also liable to fine.
In the present case, it was observed from the statements of Raj Singh, PW-1 (appellant No.1), Karni Singh, PW-2 (appellant No.2) and Beant Singh, PW-3 (appellant No.3), it was clear that the accused caused injuries on the person of the complainant at the house of Raj Singh at about 1.30 pm on 22.06.2010. The accused (respondents No.2 to 6) entered in the house. They caused injuries on the person of Raj Singh, Karni Singh and Beant Singh (appellants No.1 to 3). It was held that the prosecution had failed to establish that they entered the house of the complainant with the motive to commit the offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. The motive behind the incident, it was noticed that there was a dispute between Beant Singh (appellant No.3) and his father Dalel Singh (respondent No.2). Raj Sngh (appellant No.1) was supporting Beant Singh (appellant No.3) in that dispute. It was held that for such a motive, no person being father and real brother of the injured would cause injury, which would be one punishable with imprisonment for life. Therefore, the offence under Section 450 IPC, it was held was not made out. However, the accused (respondent No.2 to 6), it was held had committed the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and they were convicted and sentenced accordingly.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -10 -10- 10- After going through the impugned judgment and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the reasonings recorded by the learned trial Court for holding the offence under Section 450 to be not made out and for convicting them under Section 452 IPC on the basis of the prosecution case and evidence on record is reasonable. The respondents No.2 to 6 though were not charged for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. However, Section 221(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that if in a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 221, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. The accused respondents No.2, 4 and 5 have not been convicted for the offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. In fact, out of the respondents No.2 to 6, who have been convicted, Gurmit Singh (respondent No.6) has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. Besides, Surjit Singh (respondent No.3) and Jasvir Singh (respondent No.5) have been convicted for the offence under Section 326, which is punishable with imprisonment for life. The other accused i.e. Dalel Singh (respondent No.2) and Malkit Singh (respondent No.4) have not been convicted for the offence punishable with imprisonment for life. In any case, the learned trial Court having found that the offence under Section 450 IPC to be not made out would not warrant inference by this Court and the reasons recorded by it are just and tenable. Merely because another view may be possible would not be a ground to upset an order of acquittal for the offence under Section 450 IPC.
GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 204 CRA-D-779-DB of 2014 -11 -11- 11- In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observations made in this order are for the purposes of consideration of this appeal and are not to be construed as an expression of opinion in the connected Criminal Appeal No.S-1518-SB of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.S-1871-SB of 2014 that have been filed by the accused.
(S. S. SARON) JUDGE (LISA GILL) JUDGE 02.09.2014 G. Bhardwaj GAURAV BHARDWAJ 2014.09.15 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh