Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nahar Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 14 December, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 14.12.2010
Nahar Singh and others
........ Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Nahar Singh, Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 25.9.2001, arising out of FIR No. 108 dated 19.7.2001, registered under Sections 353/332/333/186/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act at Police Station, Dirba.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 333/353/186 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced as under: CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -2-
1. Nahar Singh under Section 333 IPC To undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months.
Nahar Singh under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC.
To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of one month.
Nahar Singh under Section 186 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two months.
Nahar Singh under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electriciy Act read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year.
2. Prem Singh under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months.
Prem Singh under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month.
Prem Singh under Section 186 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two months.
CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -3-Prem Singh under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year.
3. Gurmeet Singh under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of two months.
Gurmeet Singh under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month.
Gurmeet Singh under Section 186 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of two months.
Gurmeet Singh under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 34 IPC To undergo RI for a period of one year.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Suresh Chand- complainant was serving as Junior Engineer, in Punjab State Electricity Board in City Sub Division, Patran. On 19.7.2001, he alongwith Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO, Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Jugraj Singh and Satinder Singh, Junior Engineers, had gone to village Shadi Hari to check theft of electricity. Secret information was received that Nahar Singh, was stealing energy by operating his electric motor in his fields by using 'kundi' connection. After receiving secret information CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -4- complainant alongwith other officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board, had gone to the fields of Nahar Singh. Electric motor of Nahar Singh was found running with the help of 'kundi' connection. Nahar Singh was not present at the spot. He had gone to divert the direction of water in the fields. In the meantime, officials of the PSEB removed the 'kundi' connection and started making roll of the cable which was being used for stealing energy. At about 6.00 a.m. Nahar Singh armed with Gandasa along with his two sons came at the spot and attacked the raiding party. Nahar Singh gave Gandasa blow with its reverse side to Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO, hitting his left wrist. Raula was raised then Nahar Singh and his two sons ran away from the spot.
Injured Jagdish Ram Sharma, was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kauhrian by Satinder Singh, Junior Engineer. Cable and starter removed from the motor were produced before the police party headed by ASI Mukhtiar Singh, present near Bus Stand, Dirba. Statement of Suresh Chand-complainant was recorded and after making endorsement the same was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.
After inspecting the spot, the Investigating Officer, had prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. 608 meters long cable wire and one starter LT-IK alongwith the switch, was also taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. After Jagdish Ram Sharma, was declared fit to make statement then his statement was recorded. Accused were arrested on 20.7.2001 and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 333/353/186 CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -5- read with Section 34 IPC and Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Dr. Maghar Singh, had medico-legally examined Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO on 19.7.2001 and found following injury on his person:
"1) Left wrist joint is swollen tender painful and reddish in colour - X-ray was advised."
Injury was kept under observation. Ex. PB is the copy of the MLR. As per request of police injury was declared grievous in nature.
PW-2 Ishar Singh Ghuman, brought record from PSEB Patiala and stated that Jagdish Ram Sharma, on the day of occurrence was serving as SDO, PSEB.
PW-3 Jarnail Singh Dhindsa, SDC, produced the log book of vehicle No. PB-11-K-4099.
PW-4 Suresh Chand, Junior Engineer, is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.
PW-5 Jugraj Singh, Junior Engineer, was also declared hostile.
PW-6 Dr. Karam Singh, stated that injury on the person of Jagdish Ram Sharma, was X-rayed. Fracture was noticed. Ex. PW-6/A is the X-ray report and X-ray films are Ex. PW-6/B and Ex. PW-6/C. PW-8 Jagdish Ram Sharma, appeared as his own witness and supported the prosecution story.
CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -6-
PW-9 Satinder Singh - Junior Engineer, was with the raiding party headed by Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board. Further stated that when raiding party reached the fields of Nahar Singh, then Jagdish Ram Sharma, was found injured and shifted to Civil Hospital, Kauhrian.
PW-10 ASI Mukhtiar Singh, was the Investigating Officer. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
In defence copies of the orders dated 4.11.2000 Ex. DA/1 and 3.10.2001 Ex. DA/2, were tendered into evidence.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, the 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 the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellants argued that appellants Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh are the sons of Nahar Singh. Nahar Singh armed with Gandasa gave blow from its reverse side hitting the left wrist of Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh were not named in the FIR. They had not raised lalkara but were named in the FIR being the sons of Nahar Singh. Suresh Chand, Junior Engineer is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story by saying that appellants did not cause CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -7- injury to Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Jugraj Singh, Junior Engineer, is the second eye-witness but he too did not support the prosecution story. Satinder Singh, PW-9, is the other relevant witness but Satinder Singh did not state a word that in his presence appellants had misbehaved with the injured. He simply stated that he had shifted the injured to hospital when left wrist of Jagdish Ram Sharma, was found tied with the handkerchief. Jagdish Ram Sharma, is the injured and while appearing as PW-8 then stated that Gandasa blow was given from its reverse side hitting his left wrist. Other appellants also abused and slapped him. Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, were challaned being the sons of Nahar Singh. If Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, had the intention to cause injuries to the employees of PSEB then while empty handed they could easily raise lalkara exhorting the co-accused to cause injuries but no lalkara was raised by Prem Singh or Grumeet Singh. They had not caught hold the injured facilitating their father to cause injury with a Gandasa. In the FIR not a word was stated that Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, had abused and slapped Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. At the time of occurrence Nahar Singh was 45 years old and at present he is 54 years old. He is the first offender. Requested that sentence of Nahar Singh be reduced.
Learned State counsel argued that Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, were present at the spot along with Nahar Singh. They had abused and slapped Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Earlier to the occurrence they were not known to the complainant that is why complainant did not name Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh. But later on they were identified by the injured when appeared in Court. CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -8-
First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants was that the presence of Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful because they were not named in the FIR. They had not raised lalkara exhorting co-accused to cause injuries. Eye-witnesses appeared in Court and did not support the prosecution story. There is only bald statement of the injured but the statement without corroboration is not sufficient to convict Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh. After going through the evidence on file, I am of the opinion that this submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants seems to be reasonable one. According to the prosecution story, employees of Punjab State Electricity Board while present in village Dirba received secret information that Nahar Singh, was stealing energy by using 'kundi' connection. On receipt of secret information employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board had gone to the electric motor of Nahar Singh and the motor was found running with the help of 'kundi' connection. At that time Nahar Singh had gone to divert the direction of water in the fields. Before arrival of Nahar Singh officials of the PSEB had removed the cable. Occurrence was witnessed by Suresh Chand and Jugraj Singh, Junior Engineers. Suresh Chand, Junior Engineer, appeared as PW-4 whereas Jugraj Singh, appeared as PW-5. While appearing in the Court they have categorically stated that in their presence no occurrence had taken place. Both were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor of the State. Jugraj Singh and Suresh Chand, were the employees of PSEB and injured was the SDO. No record maintained by PSEB, was summoned to show that on 19.7.2001, Suresh Chand CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -9- and Jugraj Singh, Junior Engineers, were not in the field along with the SDO to detect the theft of electricity. If Suresh Chand and Jugraj Singh had witnessed the occurrence then they could easily state that Nahar Singh gave blow from the reverse side of the Gandasa to Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO whereas sons of Nahar Singh had abused the officials. Instead of supporting the version of Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO, they have stated that in their presence appellants had not caused injuries to the SDO.
PW-9 Satinder Singh, Junior Engineer, is the next relevant witness who stated that on 19.7.2001, he was with the raiding party headed by Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Raiding party had gone to village Shadi Hari, to detect the theft of electricity. As per secret information raiding party had gone to the fields of Nahar Singh then Jagdish Ram Sharma, was found present there with injury on the left wrist. Jagdish Ram Sharma, was shifted to Civil Hospital, Kauhrian where he was medico-legally examined. He was also with the raiding party headed by Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO but he did not know how the occurrence had taken place. As discussed earlier three officials namely Suresh Chand, Jugraj Singh and Satinder Singh, Junior Engineers, were with the raiding party headed by Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO and if they had seen the appellants namely Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, while committing crime then they should have supported the prosecution story. From the statements of Suresh Chand, Jugraj Singh and Satinder Singh, Junior Engineers, PSEB, Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh were not present at the spot. They had not assaulted and slapped the SDO.
CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -10-
Next relevant witness is the injured namely Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Only one injury was noticed on the person of Jagdish Ram Sharma. While appearing in the Court, he stated that he alongwith Suresh Chand, Junior Engineer and other officials had gone to the fields of Nahar Singh to check the theft of electricity. Nahar Singh, armed with Gandasa gave blow from its reverse side hitting his left wrist. Other appellants had also abused and slapped him but this fact is not correct one. In the FIR there is not a word that other appellants namely Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh had raised lalkara and abused and slapped Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Three eye- witnesses namely Suresh Chand-complainant, Jugraj Singh and Satinder Singh, Junior Engineers, did not support the prosecution story. There is only bald statement of Jagdish Ram Sharma, injured. Conviction can be based on a bald statement but statement should inspire confidence.
Jagdish Ram Sharma, while appearing as PW-8 in examination-in-chief stated that at about 6.00 a.m. they were in the area of village Shadi Hari. On receipt of secret information they had gone to the fields of appellants and they were found stealing energy. When they had brought out the electric motor from the well then appellants facing trial came there. At that time Nahar Singh was armed with Gandasa. Blow was given from its reverse side. Other appellants had also abused and slapped him. In cross-examination, admitted that appellants were seen for the first time in the Court. He cannot tell the names of the sons of Nahar Singh. He cannot identify the sons of Nahar Singh. He had not disclosed about the physical appearance of CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -11- the sons of Nahar Singh to the police. Their names were not disclosed to the police. Names of the sons of Nahar Singh were disclosed to him by the police. Names of Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, were added by the police after investigation. Sons of Nahar Singh, slapped him but the witness was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. DA wherein it was not so recorded. Firstly, in the FIR complainant should have stated to the police as to whether the sons of Nahar Singh had raised a Lalkara exhorting the co-accused to cause injury. Secondly, whether the sons of Nahar Singh, were armed and gave injuries to the injured at any stage. If sons of Nahar Singh, were very much present at the spot and had abused and slapped the official then this fact should have been mentioned in the FIR or in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As discussed earlier, Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh were not named in the FIR. Their description was also not given to the police. Eye-witnesses did not state a word that Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, were also present with Nahar Singh and had abused and slapped the SDO. For the first time in Court injured Jagdish Ram Sharma, stated that sons of Nahar Singh had also slapped him but the witness was confronted with his statement Ex. DA but in Ex. DA there is not a word that Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, sons of Nahar Singh had also abused and slapped Jagdish Ram Sharma, SDO. Nahar Singh, was found stealing energy by using 'kundi' connection. Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, are the sons of Nahar Singh and due to this reason they were implicated in this case. If Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh, had the intention to commit the crime then they could easily cause injuries to the officials of PSEB. Story qua CRA-S-1975-SB of 2002 -12- presence of Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh at the time of occurrence is not reasonable one. Benefit of doubt is given to them and they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellants was that occurrence is dated 19.7.2001 and at that time Nahar Singh, was 45 years old. Only one blow was given from the reverse side of Gandasa, so lenient view be taken.
Undisputedly, occurrence is dated 19.7.2001. Nahar Singh was armed with Gandasa and gave blow from its reverse side. Blow was not on the vital part and repeated. At present Nahar Singh is about 54 years old, so I take lenient view. Under Section 333 IPC instead of 3 years he is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal on behalf of Prem Singh and Gurmeet Singh is accepted whereas appeal qua Nahar Singh, is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
Nahar Singh, is on bail and directed to surrender before the concerned authority to undergo imprisonment as ordered aforesaid by this Court, failing which concerned authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, to issue re-arrest warrants against Nahar Singh, to undergo remaining period of imprisonment.
December 14, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE