Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 2011
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002
Decided on 04 .11.2009.
Ravinder Kumar and others ...... Appellants.
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present :- Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. K.S.Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction order dated 17.5.2002 passed by Mr.G.S.Saran, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which appellant-Surinder Kumar has been convicted under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter mentioned as - the IPC) whereas other accused under sections 307/34 of the IPC, Ravinder Kumar stood convicted under Section 324 IPC and other accused under sections 324/34 IPC and Satish Kumar under Section 323 IPC whereas other accused under Sections 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as under :-
Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 2
Surinder Kumar To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- U/S 307 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
U/S 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for six months. U/S 323/34 IPC To undergo RI for three months. Ravrinder Kumar To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- U/S 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. U/S 324 IPC To undergo RI for six months. U/S 323/34 IPC To undergo RI for three months. Satish Kumar To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- U/S 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. U/S 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for six months. U/S 323 IPC To undergo RI for three months. Piara Lal To undergo RI for five years and to pay a (since deceased) fine of Rs.1000/- U/S 307/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. U/S 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for six months. U/S 323/34 IPC To undergo RI for three months.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story in brief is that on 1.1.1999 at about 8.30 a.m. PW Gurdial Singh, who was working as Booking clerk in Chand Theatre and Ram Kumar was a worker in the canteen of Chand Theatre. PW- Gurdial Singh was standing near the Cycle Stand and Ram Kumar as basking the fire. When appellants came there, Piara Lal accused took the injured in a jaffa and appellant Surinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar took out daggers from their dub and Surinder Kumar gave a dagger blow on the Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 3 right side of abdomen of Ram Kumar and Ravinder Kumar gave a dagger blow on the back of Ram Kumar and Satish Kumar gave a wood blow on the right cheek of Ram Kumar injured. Ram Kumar raised noise of Naa Marro, Naa Marro and after that all the accused along with their weapons run away from there. The motive to cause the injuries is that a few days back Ravinder Kumar had come to Chand Theatre to see the picture and he had a dispute with Ram Kumar for the return of some amount, therefore, all the accused with an intention to cause the death of Ram Kumar had caused the injuries. Lok Nath Rehriwala got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. On receipt of intimation from the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Investigation commenced. Statements of the injured was recorded on 14.1.1999. Accused were arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court for trial.
On appearance of the appellants before the Court, copies of the documents were supplied to him under rules.
Finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 307, 324,323 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed against the appellants, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the appellants, examined complainant Gurdial Singh (PW-1), Dr.Ashok Raswant (PW-2), Krishan Anand, Draftsman (PW-3), Ram Kumar injured (PW-4), Inspector Ranbir Singh (PW-5) and ASI Harbans Singh (PW-5) and the evidence was closed by the Public Prosecutor.
The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 4 all the incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence.
The appellant did not opt to lead any defence evidence and closed the same.
The learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced him, as narrated above.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said judgment of conviction, the convict/appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State counsel and have gone through the records of the case.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is huge delay of more than three days in lodging the FIR. Gurdial Singh could have lodged the FIR earlier. So, the delay is fatal to the prosecution case.
I have considered the said submission but do not find any merit in the same.
The trial Court has discussed this aspect of the case. The complainant was unfit to make the statement. From these circumstances, the delay is fully explained.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complainant has not identified the appellants in the trial Court. No test identification parade was conducted. So, in these circumstances, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have considered the said submission but do not find any merit in the same.
This aspect of the case has also been elaborately delay the trial Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 5 Court in paragraph-22 of the judgment. Besides the complainant, the other witness Gurdial Singh have supported the case of the prosecution. So, that argument does not affect the otherwise fully proved case of the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there are material contradictions in the ocular evidence as well as the medical evidence. The ocular evidence states that two blows have been given by Surinder Kumar whereas according to the medical evidence, there is only one blow attributed to Surinder Kumar. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any merit in that submission.
In this case the injured witness as well as Gurdial Singh eye- witness have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. Criminal case has to be decided on the broad line and does not hinge upon minor contradictions. The affect of said contradictions has been discussed by the learned trial Court in paragraph-21 of its judgment and on re-praisal of the evidence, no ground for interference is made out.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that no independent witness has been examined and on that account prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any merit in the said submission.
It is the quality of the witness and not the quantity of the witnesses which matters in the criminal cases. As discussed above, the testimony of complainant as well as Gurdial Singh inspires confidence. Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 6
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.
I have considered the said submission but do not find any merit in the same.
The nature of injuries clearly shows that the injury on the abdomen of the complainant was dangerous to life.
Learned counsel for appellant-Ravinder Kumar has further submitted that Ravinder Kumar-appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of one year five months and eight days whereas Surinder Kumar and Sushil Kumar appellants have undergone incarceration for a period of one year, one month and twenty four days. The dispute was regarding only Rs.2/- over charging regarding soda water. The only one each injury has been attributed to each of the accused. So, it is further contended that appellants are on bail since 2003 and all have to support the family. So, prayer has been made for reduction of sentence.
I have carefully considered the said submission and find force in the said submission. The occurrence relates to the year 1999 and the appellants Surinder Kumar and Sushil Kumar have undergone incarceration for one year one month and twenty four days whereas appellant-Ravinder Kumar has undergone incarceration for a period of one year five months and eight days, as per conviction slips placed on the records. They are not the previous convicts and are not facing any trial in any other case as per conviction slips. The occurrence took place suddenly regarding small amount of Rs.2/-. So, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the sentence of the appellants stands reduced to the already Criminal Appeal No.942 SB of 2002 7 undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- each. Out of the said amount, on realization, Rs.50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the injured Mohinder Singh as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
With the modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
November 04 , 2009 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE