Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kahan Singh vs State Of Pb on 24 September, 2014
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
SATYAWAN
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 2014.09.30 12:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH High Court Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No. 1187-SB of 2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision :24.09.2014
Kahan Singh & another
.......... APPELLANTS
Versus
State of Punjab
...... RESPONDENT
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Present : Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACJ. (Oral)
Appellants Kahan Singh and Pargat Singh sons of Bhajan Singh have filed this appeal impugning the judgment dated 04.06.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Sangrur, vide which appellant Kahan Singh was convicted under Section 307 IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months under Section 27 of the Arms and and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, whereas the appellant Pargat Singh was convicted under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC and was also sentenced to SATYAWAN Criminal Appeal No. 1187-SB of 2003 -2- 2014.09.30 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.
Briefly the prosecution story is that the complainant Jagdev Singh, who is also the injured, had two brothers, namely, Beant Singh and Baljinder Singh. They owned 4½ acres of land in village Sayal, out of which 2½ acres of land was mortgaged with Kahan Singh while the remaining land was in their possession. The complainant had sown wheat crop in the land which was in their possession. On 9.12.1997 at about 2:00 p.m. when Jagdev Singh along with his brother Beant Singh was putting fertilizers in the wheat crop, accused Kahan Singh, armed with gun and Pargat Singh armed with a soti came to the fields and accused Pargat Singh gave a lalkara that Jagdev Singh should not be allowed to go alive and be taught a lesson for getting a sale deed registered in favour of some other persons. On hearing the lalkara, accused Kahan Singh fired a shot from his gun towards Jagdev Singh and the bullets hit on his shoulder of left upper arm and he fell down. Beant Singh, who was the brother of Jagdev Singh, raised alarm, upon which both the accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Jagdev Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur where he was treated for the gun shot injuries received by him. The motive of the offence was that a civil suit was pending regarding the mortgaged land and remaining 2 acres of land between the complainant and both the accused and criminal proceedings under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. were also pending.
The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Jagdev Singh, complainant appeared as PW-2, who narrated the entire sequence of events and he categorically stated that accused Pargat Singh raised a SATYAWAN Criminal Appeal No. 1187-SB of 2003 -3- 2014.09.30 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh lalkara whereas gun shot injury was caused by accused Kahan Singh. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, injured-eye witness, which was corroborated by the statement of Dr. Balwinder Singh, PW-8, the trial Court convicted both the accused as mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this judgment.
During the pendency of this appeal, the main accused Kahan Singh has already expired and thus appeal qua him abates.
As far as accused Pargat Singh is concerned, he is alleged to have given a lalkara, upon which his real brother Kahan Singh, since deceased, caused injuries to complainant Jagdev Singh and his brother Beant Singh. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the accused Pargat Singh can be dealt with lightly as he did not cause any injury to the injured.
After going through the entire evidence and the case file I uphold the conviction of the accused Pargat Singh and keeping in view the fact that Pagat Singh did not cause any injury to Jagdev Singh, I instead of sentencing him to undergo a specific period of imprisonment, deem it appropriate to direct him to pay compensation to the injured Jagdev Singh. Accordingly, the appellant Pargat Singh is directed to pay compensation of ` 1,00,000/- to the injured Jagdev Singh within a period of three months. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of `1,00,000/- with the trial Court and the complainant-injured Jagdev Singh shall be entitled to withdraw the entire amount on account of the injuries suffered by him. The appeal stands disposed of with the above modification. In case the amount is not deposited, then the sentence as imposed by the trial court shall stand.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 24.09.2014 'SP'