Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh Alias Chhota Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
-1-
Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
Date of Decision: January 08, 2010.
Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh and another ... Appellants.
VERSUS
State of Punjab ...Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ?
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
This appeal has been preferred by appellants Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 21.7.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, convicting and sentencing them under Sections 307, 307 read with Section 34, 324 and 324 read with Section 34 -2- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh was convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of the Code whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh was convicted under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Code. Under Section 307 of the Code, appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh was awarded this sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code. Both the appellants were also sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 324 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code i.e appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh under Section 324 whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
The instant F.I.R was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Sher Singh before the police on 28.12.1994. He stated that on 27.12.1994 at about 7 P.M, when he (Sher Singh) and Saudagar Singh were returning to their house after working in the fields and had reached outside the house of Gurnam Singh Jathedar, they saw appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh armed with `Ghop' and appellant Sukhdev -3- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
Singh alias Sukha Singh armed with a `Bali' standing under the `Kikar' tree in the grain market. Both the appellants came towards Sher Singh and Saudagar Singh. Appellant Surjit Singh raised `Lalkara' that they should not be allowed to go and inflicted a `Ghop' blow from behind on the back of the head of Sher Singh. Sher Singh fell down and raised alarm `Marta, Marta'. Surjit Singh also caused injuries to Sher Singh with `Ghop' on his left shoulder and left thigh. Appellant Sukhdev Singh caused injuries with `Bali' to Saudagar Singh on his forehead and nose. Many people had gathered there on hearing the alarm. Balwant Singh, father of Sher Singh, had also reached there and witnessed the occurrence. He (Balwant Singh) shifted both the injured to Civil Hospital, Joga, from where they were shifted to Civil Hospital, Mansa. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that there was some altercation between the parties about two-three months prior to the occurrence.
On completion of investigation and due formalities, challan against the accused was put in Court.
The appellants were charged under Section 307, Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 324 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed a trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Vijay Mahna (P.W.1), Dr. R.K. Garg (P.W.2), injured Sher Singh (P.W.3), Balwant Singh (P.W.4), Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh -4- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
No.197 (P.W.5), Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhdev Singh No.229 (P.W.6) and Draftsman Bharat Bhushan (P.W.7). Saudagar Singh injured had died before his deposition in Court.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. Revenue documents (Exhibits D.1 to D.3) were tendered in defence evidence by the accused.
I have heard Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab and have gone through the records of the case.
Learned counsel for the appellants, after arguing the matter at some length, laid much emphasis on the point that the offence committed by the appellants does not fall under Section 307 of the Code and, according to the learned counsel, it rather falls within the ambit of Section 325 of the Code.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Vijay Mahna (P.W.1) and Dr.R.K. Garg (P.W.2), I am of the considered opinion that the offence committed by the appellants would fall within the ambit of Sections 326, 325 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Code. Section 307 of the Code in this case was applied only on account of one injury i.e injury No.1, -5- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
which was a blunt weapon injury attributed to appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh, on the person of injured Saudagar Singh, which is as under:-
" Diffused bluish swelling on upper
and lower eyes on right side, swelling
extending on right side of frontal area of skull and little side of right eye. Right eye cannot open. Tenderness present. Advised X-ray.
Kept under observation"
The other two blunt weapon injuries on the person of injured Saudagar Singh i.e bleeding from the right nostril and abrasion on left leg upper and lower part on dorsal aspect, were declared simple in nature. A perusal of injury No.1 on the person of injured Saudagar Singh, reproduced above, shows that the injury which was near the eye did not cause penetration in the skull although there was fracture of right frontal bone. In my considered view, it cannot be said that the act of appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh in causing this injury was with such intention or knowledge that he intended to cause death of injured Saudagar Singh. This injury, thus, being a grievous one with a blunt weapon would fall within the ambit of Section 325 of the Code making appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh liable under Section 325 of the Code and -6- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code.
Injury No.1 on the person of injured Sher Singh, i.e "6 x 2 cms incised wound present transversely placed 8 cms away from left pinna and below the occipital area, little on left side, margins clean-cut wound was bone deep, bleeding was present. Tenderness was present, kept under observation. Advised X-ray", caused with a sharp-edged weapon which was declared grievous in nature, attributed to appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh, would definitely fall under Section 326 of the Code. As such, appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh is liable for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Code whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh is liable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Code. Further, appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh is also liable under Section 324 of the Code for causing injury No.2 i.e "diffused swelling red colour on left arm. Dorsal lateral part, tenderness was present. Advised X-ray" on the person of injured Sher Singh with blunt portion of `Dhop' whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha Singh is liable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code.
In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Code, as recorded by the trial Court, is upheld. However, the conviction of appellant Surjit Singh under Section 307 and that of appellant Sukhdev Singh under Section 307 read -7- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
with Section 34 of the Code is converted to one Section 325 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code, respectively. Further, appellant Surjit Singh is convicted under Section 326 of the Code whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh is convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order, insofar as convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 307 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Code, are accordingly set aside and, instead, the appellants are convicted under Sections 326, 326 read with Section 34, 325 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Code.
So far as the sentence is concerned, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants, while maintaining their conviction and sentence under Section 324 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code, as mentioned above, are sentenced under Section 326, 326 read with Section 34, Section 325 and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code as under:-
Under Section 326 of the Code,
appellant Surjit Singh alias Chhota Singh is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months whereas appellant Sukhdev Singh -8- Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.
alias Sukha Singh is awarded this
sentence under Section 326 read with
Section 34 of the Code. Under Section
325 of the Code, appellant Sukhdev Singh
alias Sukha Singh is sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years and
to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
for two months whereas appellant Surjit
Singh alias Chhota Singh is awarded this
sentence under Section 325 read with
Section 34 of the Code. The substantive
sentences of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants under Sections 326, 326 read
with Section 34, 325, 325 read with Section
34, 324 and 324 read with Section 34 of
the Code shall run concurrently.
This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
January 08, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL )
ak JUDGE
-9-
Criminal Appeal No.590-SB of 1997.