Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baghel Singh @ Baghala vs State Of Punjab on 27 November, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.A. No. S 1571 SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.A. No. S 1571 SB of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision : 27.11.2013
...
Baghel Singh @ Baghala
................Appellant
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Baghel Singh @ Baghela s/o Sardara Singh has directed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2003 passed by Sh. Gurbir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that Nand Kishore @ Ghop s/o Ram Nath made statement in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana that he was resident of Surjan Basti, Dirba. He had two sons namely, Rajnish and Ashwani Kumar and he was Chugh Banita 2013.12.03 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1571 SB of 2003 -2- running kerosene depot at village Jalal. House of Baghel Singh s/o Sardara Singh was situated at some distance from his depot. They were having very good relations. He lent some money to Baghel Singh. He used to visit his house to collect the said money, but Baghel Singh used to put off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 26.1.2002 at 3.00 P.M. he was waiting at bus stand, Dirba for going to his village and was talking with his brother Trasem Chand who was running a general merchant shop at bus stand, Dirba. In the meantime, Baghel Singh who was carrying a gandasa in his right hand came there. He shouted to teach him a lesson for having illicit relations with his wife. He gave a gandasa blow which hit in the centre of his head. He gave another blow with the gandasa hitting at the right of his head. The complainant fell down on the ground. Baghel Singh gave two more blows with gandasa when he was lying on the ground on the right side of his neck and on the backside of his neck. The complainant and his brother Tarsem Chand raised alarm. In the meantime, accused went away alongwith his gandasa, while hurling abuses. Tarsem Chand brother of the complainant took him to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, from where he was referred to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana.
After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Chugh Banita 2013.12.03 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1571 SB of 2003 -3-
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Paramvir Singh Kaler, Medical Officer, PW-2 Dr. Uttam George, Radiologist, PW-3 Dr. Ashwani Kumar and Dr. Mohan Verghese is also mentioned as PW-3 by the trial Court, so his statement be read as PW-3/A. The prosecution further examined PW-4 Tarsem Chand, PW- 5 Nand Kishore, PW-6 Basakha Singh, PW-7 HC Amarjit Singh, PW- 8 Ramji Dass and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence.
The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he denied and pleaded false implication. He was called upon to lead his defence evidence, but he had chosen not to lead any defence evidence.
Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 307 IPC as narrated above.
Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 30.7.2003, passed by Sh. Gurbir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant having realised that it is a case of single accused and ocular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court. So, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC as recorded by the trial Court, stands affirmed.
However, counsel for the appellant has submitted that even according to the judgment, the appellant was aged 60-62 years in the year 2002. So, he is now aged about 72 years. He has already Chugh Banita 2013.12.03 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1571 SB of 2003 -4- undergone incarceration for a period of 4 years, 2 months and 16 days out of the substantive sentence of 5 years. It is further submitted that he is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 11 years. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.
Learned State counsel has submitted that it is the prerogative of the Court to award the sentence.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.
The appellant has given his age as 60-62 years on 31.5.2003 at the time of making statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So, he must be now more than 70 years. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 4 years, 2 months and 16 days out of the substantive sentence of 5 years. He is in the evening of his life. The appellant has also suffered protracted trial for the last more then 11 years. So, considering all the circumstances, the sentence of the appellant stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine stands affirmed.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 27.11.2013 Judge chugh Chugh Banita 2013.12.03 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document