Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh @ Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 3 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-498-SB of 2001
Date of decision: 03.02.2011
Jagtar Singh @ Jagga
........ Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
****
PRESENT: Mr. Pramjit Singh Hundal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
****
JORA SINGH, J.
Jagtar Singh @ Jagga, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.3.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 15.4.1998, arising out of FIR No. 52 dated 28.7.1997, registered under Section 307 IPC at Police Station Dakha.
By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -2-
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Avtar Singh @ Tari was working as scooter mechanic under the name and style of Hans Auto Centre at Raikot Road, Dakha. On 25.7.1997, Hardeep Singh, at about 7.00 p.m. came at the shop of Avtar Singh. Avtar Singh, expressed his intention to purchase an air cooler. Hardeep Singh, replied that already he was having an air cooler. After that Avtar Singh along with Hardeep Singh, had gone to his (Hardeep Singh) residential house on scooter of Hardeep Singh. After inspection Avtar Singh replied that he wanted to purchase that air cooler and payment was to be paid by him (Avtar Singh) in instalments. Then they came back to the shop of Avtar Singh. In the meantime, Jagtar Singh @ Jagga, came on his Vespa scooter. He was known to Hardeep Singh. Jagtar Singh, requested Avtar Singh to repair the light of his scooter but Avtar Singh replied that he cannot repair the light of his scooter because he did not know the said system. After that Jagtar Singh @ Jagga, requested Hardeep Singh, either to leave him at his residence at village Rakba on his own scooter or give him his scooter. Hardeep Singh, did not accede to that request and there was some altercation. Avtar Singh, requested Jagtar Singh and Hardeep Singh, not to fight at his shop. Both had went away with their respective scooters. They parked their scooters in front of the Tea Stall of Roop Lal and went inside the PCO of Avtar Singh. Avtar Singh @ Tari, had also gone to the PCO of Avtar Singh, then observed that Hardeep Singh and JagtarSingh, were grappling with each other in front of Tea Stall of Roop Lal. Jagtar Singh @ Jagga took out an object like a knife from the front basket of his scooter and gave 5-6 blows to Hardeep Singh. On receipt of blows Hardeep Singh fell down. After causing injuries Jagtar Singh, had left the spot on his scooter. Hardeep CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -3- Singh, was shifted to Pandori Hospital, by Jarnail Singh and Roop Lal.
On 26.7.1997, a telephonic message was received at Police Station Dakha from Police Station Division No.2 Ludhiana, regarding admission of Hardeep Singh injured at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. On receipt of message, ASI Jasmer Singh, Investigating Officer, had gone to Ludhiana. MLR of Hardeep Singh, was collected from Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana. Then Investigating Officer, had gone to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Application Ex. PC, was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not and the attending doctor vide his endorsement Ex. PC/1 reported that patient had already left the hospital. Then ASI Jasmer Singh, had gone to Mullanpur and made inquiry regarding the whereabouts of the injured. On 27.7.1997, message was received from Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana regarding admission of Hardeep Singh, injured at New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. ASI Jasmer Singh, had gone to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Application Ex. PJ, was moved requesting the doctor to report as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not but vide endorsement Ex. PJ/1 injured was declared unfit to make statement. No other person conversant with the incident was available nearby then Investigating Officer, came back to the police station. On 28.7.1997, ASI Jasmer Singh, along with the police officials had gone to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Again application Ex. PK, was moved requesting the doctor as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not and vide endorsement Ex. PK/1, again injured was declared unfit to make statement. Wife of Hardeep Singh, was present there and informed the police that Avtar Singh @ Tari, Scooter Mechanic, knows about the incident. After CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -4- collecting the injury report of Hardeep Singh, Investigating Officer had gone to Hans Auto Centre, Mullanpur. Statement of Avtar Singh @ Tari, Ex. PA was recorded. After making endorsement Ex. PA/1, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded. Investigating Officer, had gone to the spot and after inspecting the spot rough site plan was prepared with its correct marginal notes.
On 1.8.1997, ASI Jasmer Singh, again had gone to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Application Ex. PM was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not and vide endorsement Ex. PM/1 injured was again declared unfit to make statement. Application was moved by the Investigating Officer, requesting the doctor to report about the nature of injury. Doctor vide his report dated 28.8.1997, declared injury No.6 as dangerous to life. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Avtar Singh, is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story.
PW-2 Roop Lal, is the eye-witness but he also did not support the prosecution story.
PW-3 R.S. Pandey, Record Supervisor, DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, as per record stated that Hardeep Singh, was admitted in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana on 26.7.1997 and was discharged on 21.8.1997. Ex. PB, is the bed head ticket of the injured. CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -5-
PW-4 Dr. Daljit Singh Kochhar, stated that in view of the application Ex. PC dated 26.7.1997 injured had left the hospital against medical advise.
PW-5 SI Gurcharan Singh, stated that he had recorded the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused on 3.1.1998.
PW-6 Hardeep Singh, is the injured and stated that accused had given five blows to him in the presence of Avtar Singh @ Tari, Jarnail Singh, Roop Lal and another Jarnail Singh, vegetable seller.
PW-7 Dr. Rajesh Kaura, stated that on 26.7.1997 at about 12.00 Noon, he had medico-legally examined Hardeep Singh and found following injuries on his person:
"1 Incised wound over right shoulder.
2. Incised wound over chest left side.
3. Abrasion wound over abdomen left side.
4. Incised wound in the middle of chest.
5. Abrasion and laceration first toe of right foot.
6. Head injury for which patient was admitted.
PW-8 SI Gurcharan Singh, had partly investigated the case.
PW-9 ASI Jasmer Singh, had initially investigated the case. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that 4-5 persons during night time had attacked the injured and names of those person CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -6- were not disclosed by the father of the injured at the time of admission in the New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and those persons were known to the father of the injured. Injured was inimical towards Harbans Singh Cheema. Injured was attacked by the persons of Harbans Singh Cheema. He is not physically fit. Disability is 61%. He cannot walk and stand properly without help of a stick.
In defence, DW-1 Jarnail Singh, stated that accused did not cause injuries to Hardeep Singh. In fact 2-3 unidentified persons had given injuries to Hardeep Singh.
DW-2 Balwinder Singh, Clerk, brought record from the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divison), Ludhiana, and stated that Civil Suit No.1506 dated 24.12.1991, titled as Harbans Singh Vs. Hardeep Singh, was instituted by Harbans Singh against Hardeep Singh and the next date of hearing was 8.3.2001, for evidence of the defendant. Ex. D-1 is the copy of the plaint and Ex. D-2 is the copy of the written statement.
DW-3 Manjit Kaur, Clerk, from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Ludhiana, stated that as per record disability certificate Ex. D-5, was issued in the name of Jagtar Singh @ Jagga. Disability was 61%. Ex. D-4 is the copy of relevant entry of the register.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from perusal of evidence available on file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to the prosecution story appellant had caused injuries to Hardeep Singh. Hardeep Singh, when appeared in Court then stated that five injuries CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -7- were caused by the appellant. Dr. Rajesh Kaura, had medico-legally examined the injured and according to the MLR only five injuries were noticed. Pictorial diagram was also prepared and the same is Ex. PD/1. According to pictorial diagram five injuries were noticed. No reference of 6th injury in the MLR or pictorial diagram. In Court Dr. Rajesh Kaura, stated that while issuing injury report dated 8.8.1997, Ex. PF, regarding nature of injuries there was no reference to 6th injury. Again on 28.8.1997, report was submitted regarding nature of injuries then report was that injury No.6 was dangerous to life. According to the doctor, all the remaining 5 injuries shown in the MLR and the pictorial diagram were simple in nature but in cross-examination admitted that as per MLR and pictorial diagram there were only five injuries. No reference of head injury. At the time of medico-legal examination patient was conscious. Injury No.6 can be possible by fall against hard surface. Appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC but when there was no injury dangerous to life then conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is not correct one. Other injuries were found to be simple in nature. Weapon used was blunt. Appellant is handicapped and disability is about 61%. Already appellant has undergone 4 months and 10 days out of the actual sentence. If the Court is of the view that reference of injury No.6 was not made at time of medico-legal examination, then requested that lenient view be taken. Appellant be directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone. Appellant is ready to compensate the injured.
Learned State counsel argued that six injuries were noticed on the person of Hardeep Singh, caused by the appellant. One injury on the head was dangerous to life. No doubt, appellant is handicapped CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -8- but with 61% disability appellant can cause injuries. Appellant with 61% disability was driving the scooter. In case, he can drive the scooter then he can also cause injuries.
No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction. Now the question is whether five injuries were caused or six injuries were caused by the appellant? According to the prosecution story, on 25.7.1997, at about 8.30 p.m. appellant had caused injuries to Hardeep Singh, near the PCO of Avtar Singh. Occurrence was witnessed by Avtar Singh @ Tari, Jarnail Singh, Roop Lal and another Jarnail Singh, vegetable seller. Avtar Singh @ Tari/eye-witness and Roop Lal appeared as PWs 1 and 2, respectively but both the eye- witnesses did not support the prosecution story.
Jarnail Singh and another Jarnail Singh, who was a vegetable seller had also witnessed the occurrence but they were not produced, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Jarnail Singh, vegetable seller appeared as DW-1 and stated that appellant had not caused injuries to Hardeep Singh.
After the occurrence at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. Hardeep Singh, was shifted to Pandori Hospital by Avtar Singh, Jarnail Singh and Roop Lal. From Pandori Hosptial, Mullanpur, Hardeep Singh, was shifted to Civil Hospital Ludhiana and from Civil Hospital, Ludhiana he was shifted to New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 26.7.1997, at about 12.17 a.m. i.e. during night time Hardeep Singh, was admitted in the New DMC Hospital, Ludhiana and on the same day Hardeep Singh, was medico-legally examined by Dr. Rajesh Kaura. Five injuries were noticed by Dr. Rajesh Kaura. Ex. PD is the copy of the MLR. Pictorial CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -9- diagram Ex. PD/1 was also prepared but as per Ex. PD/1 there were only five injuries noticed on the person of Hardeep Singh.
On 8.8.1997, as per request of the police Dr. Rajesh Kaura, had opined that all the injuries i.e. injuries No.1 to 5 are simple in nature. There is no reference of injury No.6.
On 28.8.1997, again there was a request by the police to declare the nature of injuries. At that time doctor reported that there is injury No.6 and injury was declared dangerous to life. On 28.8.1997, 6th injury was reported by Dr. Rajesh Kaura. At that time injured was not in the hospital. As per statement of PW-2 R.S. Pandey, Hardeep Singh, was discharged from the hospital on 21.8.1997. Dr. Rajesh Kaura, in cross-examination admitted that only five injuries were noticed and injuries were shown in the MLR and the pictorial diagram. Injury No.6 can be possible by fall against the hard surface. If injury No.6 was also present at the time of medico-legal examination then while preparing the MLR injury No.6 should have been noticed and shown in the pictorial diagram. No reason why injury No.6 was not noticed and why this injury was not shown in the pictorial diagram. On 8.8.1997, doctor reported that five injuries were noticed on the person of Hardeep Singh and all the injuries are simple in nature. If injury No.6 was on the person of Hardeep Singh, then on 8.8.1997, doctor should have reported that inadvertently injury No.6 was not shown in the MLR or the pictorial diagram. In fact, injury No.6 was noticed at the time of medico- legal examination but on 8.8.1997, no reference of injury No.6. For the first time, on 28.8.1997, doctor reported that there was injury No.6 also but this injury was possible by fall against hard surface. On 28.8.1997, injured was not in the hospital. Injured was discharged from the New CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -10- DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, on 21.8.1997. After discharge from the hospital, there was possibility of injury No.6. Injury No.6 was found dangerous to life but as discussed earlier as per MLR only five injures were noticed.
Injured while appearing in Court also stated that only five injuries were caused. Injured had also admitted that appellant is handicapped and cannot walk properly. Suggestion was given to Hardeep Singh, that some unknown persons and one Harbans Singh Cheema, with whom he had a litigation had caused injuries. If Harbans Singh Cheema and his men had caused injuries during the night time then there was no idea to name the appellant by the eye-witnesses. To avoid enmity with the appellant, eye witnesses failed to support the prosecution story but one thing is clear that five injuries were caused by the appellant. All the injuries were simple in nature. When injury No.6 was declared dangerous to life and was not caused by the appellant then appellant is not liable for punishment under Section 307 IPC. Appellant is liable for punishment under Section 324 IPC.
Occurrence is dated 25.7.1997, at that time appellant was 41 years old. Appellant was handicapped. Disability was 61%. Without support appellant cannot walk properly. Appellant is the first offender. Earlier to the present occurrence there was no serious dispute amongst the parties. He has already undergone 4 months and 10 days out of the actual sentence. Appellant is to become hardcore criminal if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I take lenient view and instead of directing the appellant to undergo CRA-S-498-SB of 2001 -11- imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, I direct him to undergo imprisonment already undergone (4 months and 10 days) under Section 324 IPC. Appellant is further directed to deposit ` 20,000/- more as fine within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured as compensation, failing which the instant appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Charge under Section 324 IPC was not framed. Charge was framed under Section 307 IPC. Without framing charge under Section 324 IPC lesser punishment can be imposed. Offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is converted into 324 IPC.
For the reasons recorded above, instant appeal is dismissed with modification on the point of conviction and sentence.
February 03, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE