Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parshotam Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2009
Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998
Date of Decision:05.02.2009
Parshotam Lal and others
.....Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 19.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur whereby he acquitted Arvind Saini alias Sabbi, Ranjit Singh alias Jita, Jatinder Nath, Amar Nath, Partap Singh, Jaishi Ram and Bodh Raj of all the charges and also acquitted Parshotam Lal, Rajesh Kumar alias Babba, Bikramjit Singh alias Vicky and Vikas Saini alias Nikki for the charges under Section 307/148 of IPC and also for charges regarding injuries on the person of Narinder Saini, Rakesh Kumar and Rajiv Kumar, but convicted and sentenced them as under for the injuries caused to Narain Singh and Anil Kumar.
Name of the Sentence Under Convict Sections
Parshotam Lal Rigorous imprisonment for two years and 326 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -2-
Name of the Sentence Under Convict Sections - do - Rigorous imprisonment for two years and 326 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323/34 IPC Rajesh Kumar Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC alias Babba - do - Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 324/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323/34 IPC Bikramjit Singh Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC alias Vicky - do - Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 324/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323/34 IPC Vikas Saini Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC alias Nikki - do - Rigorous imprisonment for one year. 326/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 324/34 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323 IPC - do - Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 323/34 IPC All sentences shall run concurrently.
The facts in brief are that on 14.10.1994, it was Dushehra Festival. After attending Dushehra celebration, Anil Kumar accompanied by Narain Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Narinder Saini was returning home. Accused Jatinder Nath empty handed, Jeeta armed with takwa, Pinky, Babba armed with hockeys, Parshotam Lal armed with Takwa, Amar Nath and Partap armed with dang each, Jaishi Ram holding an iron rod and Bodh Raj armed with a dang met them. When Anil Kumar and others came close to them, Jatinder Nath exhorted his co-accused to encircle them as they had affiliation with newly elected Sarpanch Sunita and told Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -3- them to teach Anil Kumar and others a lesson for electing another Sarpanch. On this, his co-accused attacked Anil Kumar and others. Vicky gave hockey blows to Anil Kumar hitting on his back and right shoulder. Nikki gave several hockey blows to Anil Kumar, hitting on his back on the left and right side, left side of temporal bone and on the left side of leg. On receipt of injuries, Anil Kumar fell down. Thereupon, Parshotam Lal delivered takwa blow which landed on the left foot of Anil Kumar, who along with his companions raised alarm, which attracted the passers-by who were returning from Dushehra Festival. Thereafter, all the accused entered the "Haveli" of Jatinder Nath. Narain Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Narinder Saini were also given injuries by the accused. The motive for causing the injuries was that Jatinder Nath had contested election against Sunita sister-in-law of Anil Kumar and was defeated and he nursed grudge against the complainant party. On the basis of Anil Kumar's statement recorded by ASI Manmohan Singh, daily diary entry under Punjab Police Rules 24.4 was made in the roznamcha. Ultimately, on the basis of statement Ex.PM, the case was registered. ASI Manmohan Singh inspected the spot, prepared the rough site plan showing the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurdaspur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.
The accused were charged under Sections 307/326/324/323/ 148 read with Section 149 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. B.S. Bajwa, who proved injuries and medico legal Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -4- reports of Anil Kumar. PW2 Dr. Jagjiwan Lal proved x-ray report Ex.PE regarding the injury on the person of Narinder Saini, PW-3 Sarbjit Singh Patwari proved scaled site plan Ex.P-5. PW-4, Dr. Jaspal Singh Pannu proved MLR Ex.PJ and injuries on the person of Narinder Saini, PW-5 Narain Singh deposed about the injuries received by him and by Narinder Saini and further stated that his companions also received injuries. PW-6 Anil Kumar deposed that Nikki and Vicky accused caused injuries on his person and he was also given one takwa blow by Parshotam Lal. He further deposed that Narain Singh, Bunti, Rakesh Kumar, Rajiv were also given injuries by the accused. PW-7 Narinder Kumar, PW-8 Rajiv Kumar and PW-9 Rakesh Kumar injured eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW-11 SI Manmohan Singh deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. In their defence, they examined DW1 Dr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, who deposed that he had examined Ranjit Singh and found two injuries on his person, DW2 Vipan Kishore, Ahlmad of the Court, who proved the certified copy of the statement of Gurmit Singh Ex.DD.
During investigation, the accused Jatinder Nath, Amar Nath, Partap Singh and Jaishi Ram were found innocent by the police. Their names were shown in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. After presentation of the challan, they were summoned by the Court and tried along with other co-accused. Out of the accused, allegedly Bikram Saini, Rajesh and Ranjit Singh had also received injuries. Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -5-
After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused - appellants as noted at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction and sentence, they have preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. Sandeep Mann, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has not assailed the conviction of the appellants in any manner. This being a Court of first appeal, appraisal of the evidence is required. The occurrence had taken place on 14.10.1994 at 6:00 P.M whereas the case was registered on 28.10.1994. This being a case of version and cross-version, the occurrence stands admitted. That being so, the delay in reporting the incidence to the police pales into insignificance. The same in no manner is fatal to the prosecution case. If the statement Ex.DD by Gurmeet Singh is read in evidence, the same does not reveal that the occurrence had taken place inside the `Haveli', because the same only speaks about the blood fell in the Haveli. Thus no inference can be drawn from his statement that the blood had oozed out from the injuries which was caused on 14.10.1994 in the evening. In this way, the accused have not been able to show that the occurrence had taken place inside the `Haveli' of Jatinder Nath. The injuries found on the person of Bikramjit Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Ranjit Singh accused being not serious and could be self-suffered were not required to be explained by the prosecution. The occurrence having not taken place at the house of Jatinder Nath, it is found that the right of private defence did not accrue to the accused to inflict injuries to the complainant party. The Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -6- version given by all the prosecution witnesses being consistent and credible, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the conviction is maintained.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made a submission that the sentence inflicted upon all the appellants may be reduced to the one already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this prayer. In re: Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 477, the accused was convicted under Sections 326, 325 and 324 of IPC. The sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one month).
The purpose of criminal law justice is to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society. An opportunity has also to be given to an erring individual to reform himself. In re: Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 561 (SC): 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -7- in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevant of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person, who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law."
In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 450 upholding the conviction under Section 326 IPC, this Court while relying upon Bohar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 387 has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (two months), while enhancing the fine as the accused had already faced the agony of protracted trial for 14 years.
In the instant case, the appellant Parshotam Lal has undergone one month and 18 days, Rajesh Kumar alias Babba appellant has undergone 12 days, Bikramjit Singh alias Vikcy and Vikas Saini have undergone one month and 18 days each of the total sentence. The occurrence relates to the year 1994. The appellants have undergone the agony of Protracted trial for about 14 years. This appeal is pending since 1998 and another material Criminal Appeal No.316-SB of 1998 -8- aspect of the matter is that the accused - appellants had also received injuries. Obviously, this incidence is 14 years old. Taking into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence inflicted upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court upon the appellant- Parshotam Lal is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by him within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In default of payment of fine, Parshotam Lal- appellant shall undergo the whole of the substantive sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. In case the enhanced amount of Rs.9,000/- is deposited, it shall be disbursed to the injured Anil Kumar and Narain Singh in equal share without any delay by the trial Court.
With the modification in sentence as indicated above, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
February 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes