Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 2544 of 2011 and
CRA-S-867-SB of 1999
Date of decision: 28.01.2011
Surinder Singh and others
........ Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
****
PRESENT: Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
****
JORA SINGH, J.
CRM No. 2544 of 2011 Heard Application is allowed. Agreement/compromise Annexure A-1 is ordered to be taken on record.
CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 Surinder Singh, Harbans Singh, Jasmer Kaur and Harjit CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -2- Singh, preferred this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.8.1999, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, in Sessions Case No. RT-30/31.1.1997/ 20.9.1997, arising out of FIR No. 109/26.9.1996, registered under Sections 307324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Ropar.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Section 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
1. Surinder Singh under Section 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months.
2. Harbans Singh and Harjit Singh, under Sections 307/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years.
3. Jasmer Kaur under Sections 307/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. Harbans Singh @ Bhola under Section 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ` 200/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.
CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -3-
5. Surinder Singh and Harjit Singh under Sections 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
6. Jasmer Kaur under Sections 324/34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.9.1996, at about 8.30 p.m. Gurcharan Singh and his brother Jasbir Singh, along with Swaran Singh and others were standing in front of their house. Jasmer Kaur, came and reported that Sant Ajit Singh, Parivar Vichhora, is coming to visit their village and they should vote for Sant Ajit Singh. Complainant replied that so many Akali parties came into power. Now they should vote in favour of a Hindu or a candidate of BSP, then Jasmer Kaur, felt offended and raised a lalkara exhorting the accused to catch- hold the complainant. Surinder Singh, armed with salang, gave blow on the stomach of the complainant, Harbans Singh armed with salang gave blow to Jasbir Singh. The motive behind causing injuries was that complainant was mediator in arranging marriage of Surinder Singh but he was not bringing his wife. In self-defence, accused party had also caused injuries to the complainant party. Injured were shifted to the hospital. Information was given to the police. On receipt of ruqa ASI Karam Chand along with police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Ropar. Application Ex. P-1 was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not? Injured were declared fit then statement of Gurcharan Singh Ex. PJ was recorded. After CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -4- making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PJ/2 was recorded. Accused were arrested. Rough site plan Ex. PM was also prepared with its correct marginal notes. Accused were arrested. Harbans Singh and Surinder Singh got recovered weapons of offence from the specified places. Weapons were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 307/324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Sunita Dhawan, Surgical Specialist; PW-2 Dr.Surjit Kumar Kataria; PW-3 Gurcharan Singh (injured); PW-4 Jasbir Singh (injured); PW-5 Khem Singh eye witness; PW-6 Dr. Guriqbal Singh, Radiologist; PW-7 ASI Karam Chand; PW-8 Head Constable Nikka Ram; PW-9 Constable Darbara Singh and PW-10 Jatinder Nath, Draftsman.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that there was a gathering at the place of occurrence. Complainant party attacked them and had caused injuries to Harbans Singh.
CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -5- In defence, DW-1 Baldev Singh, Sarpanch of village; DW-2 Surjit Singh and DW-3 Santokh Singh Gill, Advocate, Notary Public, Ropar, were examined.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that during the pendency of appeal, Jasmer Kaur-appellant No.3, had died and this fact is clear from the office report. Learned defence counsel further argued that parties have effected compromise. Cross-case was also registered against Gurcharan Singh, Jasbir Singh and Khem Singh. Against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.8.1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, appeal was preferred. In cross-case, appellants (complainant party) were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 324/34 IPC each and sentence was reduced to already undergone with a direction to the appellants to deposit ` 10,000/- each within 45 days, payable to the injured as compensation, vide judgment dated 22.3.2010, passed by this Court in CRA-S-910-SB of 1999. At the time of arguments learned defence counsel for the appellants produced CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -6- photocopy of the judgment and the same has been ordered to be taken on record. Further argued that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Parties are from the same village. Occurrence pertains to the month of September, 1996. Appellants are the first offenders and belongs to poor families. Requested to take lenient view.
Learned State counsel argued that cross-case was registered against the complainant. Complainant party was directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone vide judgment dated 22.3.2010, passed by this Court in CRA-S-910-SB of 1999. In view of the compromise, present appeal be disposed of.
Admittedly, FIR No. 109 dated 26.9.1996, was registered in view of the statement of Gurcharan Singh-complainant and according to the prosecution story Harbans Singh gave one blow with salang to Jasbir Singh. Surinder Singh, armed with salang also gave one blow to Gurcharan Singh-complainant. Jasmer Kaur and Harjit Singh, did not cause injuries to any one.
Injured appeared in Court and supported the prosecution story. Impugned judgment shows that cross-case was registered against Gurcharan Singh, Jasbir Singh and Khem Singh. FIR No. 109 dated 26.9.1996, under Sections 307324/34 IPC, was registered against the present appellants for causing injuries to the complainant party. In the cross-case complainant party was directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone vide judgment dated 22.3.2010, passed by this Court CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -7- in CRA-S-910-SB of 1999.
Occurrence is an admitted fact. Only dispute amongst the parties was that whether appellants had caused injuries in self-defence but the both the parties were convicted and sentenced, that means plea of self-defence was not accepted. Taking the case as a free fight both the parties were convicted. In CRA-S-910-SB of 1999, appellant party was directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone and deposit ` 10,000/- within 45 days payable to the injured as compensatio. After decision in the second appeal, parties have effected a compromise. Compromise is on the file signed by the injured and the appellants. One of the appellant namely Jasmer Kaur had died during the pendency of the present appeal. In view of the statements of the injured, eye-witnesses and doctors, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment on the point of conviction is upheld.
Occurrence pertains to the year 1996. At that time Surinder Singh, was 24 years, Harbans Singh, was 34 years old whereas Harjit Singh was 22 years old. Appellants are the first offenders. Both the parties are from the same village. After the occurrence, there was no further litigation amongst the parties. Appellants have already undergone 1 month 28 days. Appellants would become hardcore criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. In view of the compromise amongst the parties, I take CRA-S-867-SB of 1999 -8- lenient view and direct the appellants to undergo imprisonment already undergone (1 month 28 days). They are further directed to deposit ` 10,000/- each within two months before trial Court payable to the injured in equal share as compensation.
In the light of above discussion, appeal without merits is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
January 28, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE