Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: July 20, 2010
Sukhdev Singh and another .......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.TS Sangha, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Crl.A.No.450-SB of 2002 (filed by appellants Sukhdev Singh and Hardial Kaur) and Crl.Revn.No.1816 of 2002 (filed by Hardial Kaur) as both have arisen out of a common order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court").
1-A. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 25.2.2002 whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accused - appellant Sukhdev Singh was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and further rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -2- fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused-appellant Hardial Kaur was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences awarded to Sukhdev Singh were ordered to run concurrently.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as projected in para 1 of the Trial Court judgment, is that:
"Jarnail Singh, father of the complainant, had purchased a plot in the Chowk Dabwali road, Bathinda in the name of complainant Bhupinder Singh and his brothers Manwinder Singh and Joginder Singh. On his share Joginder Singh built a house. Complainant and his brother Manwinder Singh were constructing shops in the said plot in their share. On 1.2.1987 at about 5.00 p.m. Bhupinder Singh complainant was present in front of his shop while Manwinder Singh was present on shuttering built for the construction of the roof of the shop while checking the same. Sukhdev Singh accused came there and tried to enter the house of Joginder Singh, brother of the complainant. Manwinder Singh had asked him that he should not enter the house of Joginder Singh in his absence. On hearing this Hardial Kaur accused had come out of the house and said to Manwinder Singh as to who was he to check Sukhdev Singh from visiting her. At this Hardial Kaur accused had exhorted Sukhdev Singh to fire at Manwinder Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -3- Singh stating that he always used to check them from meeting each other. Sukhdev Singh accused had taken revolver from the `Dab' and had fired shot at Manwinder Singh with the intention to kill him and that shot had passed over the head of Manwinder Singh. Sukhdev Singh accused fired another shot from his revolver, which hit the fore-head of Manwinder Singh. Manwinder Singh raised hue and cry and the complainant and their brother Joginder Singh attracted there. On seeing Joginder Singh, Hardial Kaur accused had exhorted Sukhdev Singh to finish Joginder Singh and Bhupinder Singh also. Sukhdev Singh accused had aimed his revolver towards the complainant and his brother Joginder Singh. Joginder Singh had picked up an iron rod lying there and had inflicted some injuries on the forehead, shoulder, left arm and right hand of Sukhdev Singh. As a result of that revolver had fallen down from the hands of Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh and Hardial Kaur had taken to their heels. The complainant had then got Manwinder Singh admitted in the hospital, where he was medically examined. Joginder Singh gone to police station to lodge the report, but he was detained by the police. On 7.9.1987 the police got injury on the person of Manwinder Singh x-rayed from Civil Hospital, Mansa. That Sukhdev Singh and Hardial Kaur were having illicit relations since long and on that score Hardial Kaur and Joginder Singh were living separately. After that Nachattar Singh, maternal uncle of complainant effected compromise between Hardial Kaur and Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -4- Joginder Singh and Hardial Kaur started living with Joginder Singh. Again Sukhdev Singh and Hardial Kaur had started meeting each other and Manwinder Singh used to object to Sukhdev Singh to do so. Sukhdev Singh accused with the influence of his maternal uncle Karnail Singh Ex.M.L.A. And then DSP Talwandi Sabo did not allow the registration of the case on the statement of Joginder Singh. Even complainant met the higher authorities but with no effect. On the other hand, police was putting pressure on the complainant and to get the case registered. Hence, later on the present complaint was filed in the court against the accused."
3. Accused-appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused- appellants, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, viz., Dr.Avtar Singh as PW1; Bhupinder Singh as PW2 and Manwinder Singh as PW3. PW Joginder Singh was given up as having been won over by the accused-appellant.
5. Statements of the accused-appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution. Accused-appellant Hardial Kaur, in her statement, has taken a plea that she was married with Joginder Singh more than 30 years ago and she along with her five children was turned out of the house by him as he was having dirty habits and with the intervention of panchyat and relations, Joginder Singh transferred his land of village Chack Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -5- Ruldu Singhwala to his son and land of Bathinda in her favour. The land situated at village Chack Ruldu Singh Wala remained in possession of Bhupinder Singh and Manwinder Singh as they were also co-sharer in the land and she had to seek police help for taking possession. Bhupinder Singh and Manwinder Singh were helping Joginder Singh against her. She also alleged about other litigation of 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and civil suit. She also stated that Joginder Singh also sold 200 yards, out of this plot of ITI Chowk to Rashal Singh and Kirpal Singh and she filed the suit which was decreed. Another suit regarding compensation of acquired land is also pending and later on, it was dismissed. She further stated that prior to 1.9.87 Bhupinder Singh wanted to demolish the wall of shop, which was rented out by her to Sukhdev Singh accused and later on, a compromise was effected with her in the presence of witnesses for construction of wall. Hardial Kaur further stated that her parents were living with her as she had been deserted by Joginder Singh, who never resided with her in that house. On 1.9.1997 when her father was away, Manwinder Singh and Joginder Singh came to the roof of her house and started hurling filthy abuses and started throwing brick bats on them while she along with her children and her mother was sitting in the courtyard of her house and taking tea. On raising alarm, both of them (i.e. accused) came down in the courtyard by scaling the roof of their kitchen and started beating them. She also stated that she and her mother received injuries and, thus, she has been falsely involved in this case.
6. Accused-appellant Sukhdev Singh also took up the same plea as that of accused-appellant Hardial Kaur.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -6- Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the term as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment.
8. Hence this appeal.
9. The present appeal was admitted on 18.3.2002 and the sentence of the appellants was also ordered to be suspended.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment/order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellants because they have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court.
12. From the record, it is made out that in the instant case, criminal complaint was instituted in the year 1987. Thus, the appellants, by now, have suffered protracted trial for about 23 years. The appellants have already undergone sentence for a period of about 26 days.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another"
observed as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -7- of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment"
14. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded.
The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly".
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the reduction of sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice.
Criminal Appeal No.450-SB of 2002 -8-
16. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them. In the alternative, the sentence of fine awarded to the appellants is, however, enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
17. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the appellants would be taken into custody to suffer the remaining part of their respective sentence. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above.
18. Crl.Revn.No.1816 of 2003 has arisen from FIR No.269 dated 1.9.1987 which relates to the same incident and the accused named therein stand acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Since the matter has not been argued by the learned counsel on merits, therefore, the same shall also stand dismissed.
19. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
July 20, 2010 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No