Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 May, 2010
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 310-SB of 1991 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2010
Surjit Singh and another
.....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
State of Punjab.
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT: Mr Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
Mr Tejinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr J.S.Mann, Advocate
for the complainant.
T.P.S .MANN, J. (Oral):
Against the judgment and order dated 5.8.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, convicts Surjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh have filed the present appeal for challenging their conviction and sentences, whereas Criminal Revision No.70 of 1992 has been filed by the complainant with the prayer for enhancing the sentences of the convicts and for grant of adequate compensation to them. Therefore, both the appeal and revision are being disposed of by one order.
According to complainant Pargan Singh, on 11.11.1985 at about 10/11.00 PM, he was lying near the heap of paddy in his field. Some persons came to steal the paddy. The complainant got up and raised an Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -2- alarm, upon which the persons, who had come there to steal the paddy run away. In the meanwhile, Kulwinder Singh also came there. Both complainant-Pargan Singh and Kulwinder Singh saw the thieves running towards the dera of Surjit Singh etc. On the next morning at about 8.00 AM when complainant Pargan Singh was present at the tube-well near his dera, accused Surjit Singh armed with a kirpan, Malkiat Singh with a spear and Sarabjit Singh with a dang to which iron strip was affixed came there. They raised lalkara to catch hold of the complainant and to kill him as he was alleging that they were the thieves. Accused Malkiat Singh gave the spear blow on the right elbow of Pargan Singh. Kirpan blow given by Surjit Singh towards the head of Pargan Singh was warded off by the latter by raising his hands. Surjit Singh gave another kirpan blow on the head of Pargan Singh, as a result of which he fell down. Sarabjit Singh accused gave a dang blow on the face of Pargan Singh. All the accused, thereafter, gave more injuries to Pargan Singh on his left arm, head etc. The occurrence was witnessed by the wife of Pargan Singh, Kulwinder Singh and one Bhajan Kaur, who had reached the spot.
Pargan Singh was removed to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala where he was medico-legally examined by PW-1 Dr Baldev Singh, who found the following injuries on his person:
1. 2 x 1 cm stab wound which was 4 cm deep over the posterior aspect of right elbow joint, just 12 cm below the tip of joint. Underlying bone was cut. Muscle cut. Wound was profusely bleeding.
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 2.5 cm over the posterio-
medial aspect of left forearm, 15 cm proximal to left wrist joint. Underlying muscle crushed. Wound was bleeding profusely. This wound was surrounded by a contusion 10 cm x 8 cm which was tense and tender. X-ray was advised.
Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -3-
3. An incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm over the top of scalp, 9 cm behind the anterior hair line. Wound was situated in the centre and extended along the coronal plain. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.
4. An incised slanting wound 2 cm x .2 cm x 0.2 cm over the thinner eminence of left hand. Fresh bleeding was present.
5. An incised wound 1.5 cm x 2 cm x .5 cm over the anterior medial aspect of left thumb 2 cm distal to the base of thumb. Fresh bleeding was present.
6. Lower right central incisor up-rooted and place of tooth lacerated. Fresh bleeding was present. Lacerated .25 cm x .2 cm x .2 cm total number of teeth 7/3= 10. All unhealthy but immobile.
7. A lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x .2 cm on the inner aspect of lower lip just 1 cm away from the right of mid line and was surrounded by a contusion. 2.5 cm x 2 cm lacerated wound had fresh bleeding. B.P. 100/70 and pulse 100 per minute.
After his discharge from the hospital, Pargan Singh went to Police Station to lodge a report against the accused, but no action was taken. Accordingly, he submitted application Ex.PC to the Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. Despite the same, no action was taken against the accused. Left with no other alternative, he filed a private criminal complaint Ex.PD in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala. The said Court recorded preliminary evidence and summoned the accused. Upon appearance of all the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where they were charged for the offences under Sections 307/326/325/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr Baldev Singh, PW-2 Pargan Singh, PW-3 Nasib Kaur and PW-4 HC Kulwant Singh.
Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -4-
All the accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations levelled against them. They claimed themselves to be innocent.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that accused Malkiat Singh had been falsely implicated because all the accused were brothers and there was a general tendency on the part of the complainant to implicate all of them, even if, one or two, out of them, had caused injuries. Specific injury attributed to aforementioned accused Malkiat Singh could have been caused by accused Surjit Singh, who was having a kirpan, as kirpan blow given thrust-wise would result in a stab wound. The offence under Section 307 IPC was also not made out as injury No.1 was not dangerous to life individually, but it was only in association with other injuries that it could have been dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. Accordingly, accused Surjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh were held liable for offences under Sections 326/325/324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as follows:
(i) Accused Surjit Singh under Section 326 IPC, whereas Sarabjit Singh under Section 326/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; and
(ii) Accused Sarabjit Singh under Section 325 IPC, whereas Surjit Singh under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
However, no sentence of imprisonment and/or fine was Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -5- awarded under Section 324 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Along with the appeal, the appellants filed an application for leading additional evidence by way of tendering copy of DDR No.26 dated 14.11.1985. The said DDR was recorded by HC Attar Singh, Police Station, Subhanpur on the basis of statement of injured-Pargan Singh, which he made on 14.11.1985 at 4.15 PM in Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. It was stated therein that he had received injuries on 12.11.1985 at about 8.00 AM when he fell down from a tractor and on account of his landing on the pieces of stones lying there, he received injuries on his arms, face and head.
The aforesaid DDR No.26 dated 14.11.1985 recorded at Police Station, Subhanpur, was very much in existence during the trial of the case. However, none of the accused made any attempt to bring the same on record. Only a vague averment has been made in the application that the convicts came to know about the said DDR after the decision of the case. There is no material available on the file as to exactly when the convicts came to know about the said DDR or through whom they learnt about the existence of the DDR in question. As such, prayer for bringing on record DDR No.26 dated 14.11.1985 by way of additional evidence is declined.
As is clear from the impugned judgment, the ocular account of the incident in which Pargan Singh had received injuries was narrated by Pargan Singh himself, who appeared as PW-2 and by his wife Nasib Kaur, who appeared as PW-3. The medical evidence fully corroborated their testimonies as seven injuries were noticed on the person of Pargan Singh. Three of them had been caused by some sharp edged weapon, while the other four were the result of a blunt weapon. Learned counsel for the Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -6- appellants has produced copy of the statement of PW-1 Dr Baldev Singh. A perusal of the same would reveal that the defence did not ask even a single question from Dr Baldev Singh as to whether any of the injuries could be the result of falling on the stones.
Though according to the prosecution, it was Malkiat Singh accused, who was armed with a spear and wielded the same in inflicting an injury on the right elbow of Pargan Singh and during medico-legal examination of Pargan Singh, injury No.1, which was a stab wound in nature, was found on the right elbow joint, yet the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to said accused on the ground that generally, there remains tendency on the part of the complainant to add to the list of the accused, especially, when the accused are closely related to each other, like brothers in the present case. Moreover, there had occurred some delay in filing of the criminal complaint by Pargan Singh before the competent Court. As injury No.1 was a stab wound and accused Surjit Singh was carrying a kirpan at the time of the occurrence, the trial Court held that it was Surjit Singh, who had caused the said blow and not Malkiat Singh.
All the accused, while armed with weapons, had come to the place where complainant-Pargan Singh was present on 12.11.1985 at about 8.00 AM. On reaching the spot, they had raised a lalkara so as to catch hold of Pargan Singh and to kill him as he was alleging that the accused were the thieves. After causing the injuries to complainant-Pargan Singh, all the accused left together. Therefore, the provisions of Section 34 were attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case so as to hold Sarabjit Singh vicariously liable for the grievous injury caused by Surjit Singh and similarly, Surjit Singh vicariously liable for the grievous injury attributed to Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -7- Sarabjit Singh.
The occurrence in question had taken place in the year 1985. Ever since then the appellants are facing the agony of criminal prosecution. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last about 19 years. Injury falling within the ambit of Section 326 IPC was not on any vital part of complainant Pargan Singh, but on his right elbow joint, whereas on account of up-rooting of lower right central incisor because of a dang blow, accused Sarabjit Singh exposed himself to liability under Section 325 IPC. Even as per the prosecution, there was no serious enmity between the parties and the accused were suspecting that it was the complainant, who was naming them for having come to his field to steal paddy the previous night. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the convicts are on the higher side. The same need to be reduced and simultaneously, the fine already imposed upon the convicts enhanced so as to compensate complainant Pargan Singh for the injuries received by him.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants, as ordered by the trial Court, is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Surjit Singh under Section 326 IPC and Sarabjit Singh under Section 326/34 IPC is reduced from two years to one year. Substantive sentence of imprisonment of Sarabjit Singh under Section 325 IPC and of Surjit Singh under Section 325/34 IPC is reduced from one year to six months. The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon Surjit Singh under Section 326 IPC and Sarabjit Singh under Section 326/34 IPC is, however, enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. However, the fine imposed upon Sarabjit Singh under Section 325 IPC and Surjit Singh under Section 325/34 IPC, Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 -8- along with its default clause is maintained. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited by the appellants with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which they shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The enhanced amount of fine, if deposited, be paid to complainant Pargan Singh as compensation.
Criminal Appeal No.310-SB of 1991 and Criminal Revision No.70 of 1992 are, accordingly, disposed of.
May 20, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN)
Pds JUDGE
Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No