Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana on 24 January, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [1]
Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
(1) Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002
Devi Chand and others .....Appellants
v.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
...
(2) Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003
Maman Singh and another .....Appellants
v.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
Date of Decision: 24 - 1 - 2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate and
Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate
for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002.
Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate
for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003.
Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common judgment Criminal Appeal Nos.1853-SB of 2002 preferred by Devi Chand, Shiv Charan, Giani Ram, Mai Chand and Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [2] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 Ram Karan and Criminal Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 preferred by Maman Singh and Mahabir Singh shall be decided together. They all were named as accused along with one Balka. Balka is said to have expired during the course of trial. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in a case FIR No.39 dated 13.4.1996 registered at Police Station Israna under Section 307 IPC read with Sections 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants were held guilty by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.11.2002 of offence under Section 148 IPC for having formed unlawful assembly and also under Sections 307 read with Section 149 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, they were sentenced as under:-
4. .......Therefore, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for a period of three months. They are also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC.
However, the sentence shall run concurrently. In case, the fine is recovered, an amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid to Ram Phal son of Chandgi Ram as compensation. .... "
Criminal proceedings were set into motion on a statement Ex.PA made by Ram Phal PW1. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 12.4.1996 at 8.00 P.M. Statement (Ex.PA) of Ram Phal was recorded on 13.4.1996 at 2.00 A.M. at Civil Hospital, Panipat by ASI Rohtash Singh PW13. Ram Phal stated that he is a resident of Village Bhadaur. His maternal uncle Surjan was having no male child. After the death of Surjan, his maternal aunt Chanderwati recorded the land owned by Surjan in his favour. There was a separate chunk of land in Village Dohli, the possession of which was received by Surjan in the year 1980. That land Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [3] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 was owned by Chanderwati. Subsequently, a civil litigation ensued and the sale deed executed in favour of Sewa etc. was cancelled. It is stated that accused Pala @ Mai Chand son of Dhajja, Giani son of Singh Ram, Maman son of Zile Singh intended to take forcible possession of the land.
Complainant had gone to Police Station Israna to complain regarding conduct of the accused and he filed an application in this respect. On 12.4.1996 at about 8.00 P.M., when the complainant was returning from the police station, the accused apprehended him near `Badi Chopal'. Mahabir, Shiv Charan, Dei Chand sons of Har Lal, Ram Karan and Balka caught hold of him and Maman fired a shot from his pistol which hit Ram Phal on the left side of his neck. On the noise raised, Sher Singh son of Sarup, Sadhu son of Rulda, Zile son of Rati Ram, Dharma son of Gopi and Karna son of Sarup along with Raj Bala wife of the complainant reached at the spot.
They made an attempt to rescue the complainant from Mahabir and others.
Sadhu, Sher Singh and Karna were also caused injuries. In the occurrence Ram Phal received fire-arm injuries whereas Sadhu Ram, Karan Singh and Sher Singh received injuries with blunt weapons.
Ram Phal complainant was examined by Dr.P.K.Gandhi PW2 and following injuries were found on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 2cm on the left side of neck, 6 cm from the midline and 2 cm above the clavicle. Clotted blood was present. Multiple abrasions varying in size and shape were present all around the wound and clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray and referred to Surgeon for opinion.
2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1.7 cm on the left side of neck, 2 cm from the injury No.1. Clotted blood was present.
Multiple abrasion varying in size and shape were present Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [4] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 all around the wound and clotted blood was present and was advised to x-ray and referred to Surgeon for opinion.
3. Complaining of pain on the right side of back. No external injury was present and was advised x-ray.
Sadhu Ram was also examined on the same day by Dr.P.K.Gandhi PW2 and following injuries were found on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm into bone deep on the left side of scalp. 12 cm from the pinna of left ear and 13 cm from the left eye brow clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm into bone deep on the posterior aspect left elbow joint. Clotted blood was present.
3. A multiple abrasion varying in size and shape were present on the posterior aspect of left fore arm in the middle and upper part. Clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
4. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the right little finger near the base. Clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
5. An abrasion 3 cm x 5 cm on the mideal aspect of right fore arm 8 cm from the wrist joint clotted blood was present.
6. A bruise 14 cm x 2 cm on the right side of back near the tip of shoulder and was reddish in colour.
7. Two bruise 4 cm x 3 cm and 6 cm x 2 cm on the left side of back near the tip of shoulder and were reddish in colour.
Karan Singh was also examined by Dr.Gandhi PW2 and he found the following injuries on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 5 cm into bone deep on the left side of scalp, 6 cm from the pinna of left ear and 14 cm from the left eye brow clotted blood was present and Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [5] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 was advised x-ray.
2. A lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm into muscle deep on the left side of scalp, 7 cm from the pinna of left ear and 12 cm from the left eye brow, clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
3. A lacerated wound 2 cm x .5 cm into muscle deep on just above the root of nose clotted blood was present.
4. Complaining of pain on the left thumb, no external mark of injury was present.
Sher Singh son of Sarup Singh was also medico legally examined by PW2 Dr.Gandhi and found painful tender defused swelling on the left ankle joint.
From the side of the accused, Ram Karan son of Giani Ram was also medico legally examined by PW2 Dr.Gandhi and following injuries were found on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 2.5 cm x .5 cm x bone deep on the left side of scalp, 10 cm from the pinna of left ear and 14 cm from the left eye-brow, clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
2. A bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on the left shoulder and was reddish in colour.
On the same day, Dr.Gandhi PW2 also examined Dhanpati wife of Harlal and following injuries were found on her person:-
1. A multiple abrasion varying in size and shape on the dorsal aspect of right index finger, clotted blood was present and was advised x-ray.
2. An abrasion 2 cm x .5 cm on the posterior aspect of left fore arm, 6 cm from the wrist joint, clotted blood was present.
3. Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the dorsal aspect of left thumb in the middle, clotted blood was present.Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [6]
Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003
4. A painful tender defused swelling in an area of 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side of scalp, 9 cm from the right eye brow and 12 cm from the pinna of right ear and was advised x-ray.
Dr.S.S.Wadhra PW7 conducted radiological examination of Ram Phal and found radio-opaque metallic density of the shape of bullet lying on left side of the neck.
PW10 Dr.Ashok Bhatia had extracted a bullet from the neck of PW1 Ram Phal.
PW1 Ram Phal complainant while appearing in Court stated, as to what was recorded in his statement Ex.PA, contents of which have been reproduced above. This witness further stated that Dei Chand was having a lathi. All the accused caught hold of him and Maman fired a shot.
Sadhu Ram appeared as PW11. He stated that Dei Chand gave a lathi blow on his head. Shiv Charan gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder. Thereafter, he became unconscious and many more injuries were given to him.
Karan Singh PW12 stated that when he reached he found that all the accused were giving beatings to Sadhu Ram. This witness further stated that when they started taking Ram Phal to Civil Hospital, near the house of Lakhi, all the accused including Dei Chand gave beatings to him, Ramphal and Sadhu Ram. Later on this witness stated that Dei Chand, Mahabir and Shiv Charan also caused injuries on his person.
PW3 Subhash Kumar tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PE to prove the link evidence.
PW4 Ramesh Malik proved the scaled site plan Ex.PF. HC Ram Phal Singh PW5 was handed over a sealed parcel Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [7] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 containing pallets.
Chander Singh PW6 took into possession clothes of injured Ram Phal vide recovery memo Ex.PH.
HC Jagmal Singh PW8 also proved affidavit Ex.PK to prove the link evidence.
Shri Niwas Sharma PW9 proved admission and treatment record of Ram Phal at P.G.I. Rohtak.
SI Rohtash Singh, PW13 proved various facets of investigation. Complainant Ram Phal again appeared as PW14 after other accused were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This witness stated that while other persons were attracted at the spot and were taking him to Civil Hospital, Panipat, near the house of Lakhi Lamberdar, the accused way laid them and caused injuries to Sadhu, Karna and his wife Raj Bala.
Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and stated that due to civil litigation they have been falsely implicated.
Pale Ram, Sarpanch DW1 stated that no occurrence, as stated by the complainant party, had taken place.
I have heard Mr.H.S.Gill, senior counsel for appellants Maman Singh and Mahabir Singh and Mr.Vikram Singh and Rahul Vats, counsel for appellants Devi Chand, Shiv Charan, Giani Ram, Mai Chand and Ram Karan.
Mr.Gill learned senior counsel states that Ram Phal is not a truthful witness. In his cross-examination he has denied regarding pendency of various civil cases between the parties. It is further stated that Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [8] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 occurrence in the present case had taken place on 12.4.1996 at about 8.00 P.M. Statement Ex.PA of Ram Phal was recorded on 13.4.1996 at 2.00 A.M. and the case was registered on the intervening night of 12/13.4.1996 at 3.15 A.M. Counsel states that even though Ram Phal had received the fire arm injury but he was declared fit to make the statement. Counsel has further submitted that even though bullet had been extracted from neck of Ram Phal PW1, this Court should construe that the bullet was fired from a long distance and the shot had not made the exit from the other side. It is for this reason that the shot remained embedded. Mr.Gill appearing for the appellants has stated that considering the delay in reaching of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate, conduct of PW1 Ram Phal in making exaggerating narration, this Court should sift the grain from the chaff. Counsel further stated that version narrated is highly improbable. According to testimony of Ram Phal PW1, only Maman Singh had fired shot and other seven accused had caught hold of his arms. Counsel states that it is not possible because if one person fires on the neck of the injured, then the other persons will catch hold of him. Mr.Gill has further stated that in the statement Ex.PA made by complainant Ram Phal it was stated that when the shot was fired, Sadhu, Sher Singh and Karna were attracted at the spot and they were also given injuries by other accused. Counsel states that Ram Phal while appearing in Court has made an improvement and has deposed that when he was being taken to Civil Hospital, near the house of Lakhi, Lamberdar, injuries were also caused to him. It is further stated in his statement Ex.PA that except Maman Singh who is stated to be armed with a pistol, all other accused were stated to be empty handed.
Mr.Vikram Singh and Mr.Rahul Vats, counsel appearing for Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [9] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 the appellants has stated that in the statement of Ram Phal who appeared as PW1 before summoning of other accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated that only Dei Chand was armed with lathi and other accused were empty handed. It is further submitted that Sadhu Ram appearing as PW11 stated that he was given lathi blows by Dei Chand and Shiv Charan, whereas Karan Singh PW12 has stated that Shiv Charan, Dei Chand, Mahabir, Balak Ram, Mai Ram had given injuries to Sadhu Ram. He has not stated that these accused were armed with any weapon.
Mr.Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State has submitted that there was a land dispute between the parties, therefore, the accused had a motive to cause the injuries.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that pendency of civil litigation between the parties can be construed as a double edged weapon. It is equally a motive for the accused to cause injuries and for the complainant to inflate the number of accused. The Court cannot brush aside the testimony of Ram Phal PW14 who had received a bullet injury and a bullet was extracted from his neck by PW10 Dr.Ashok Bhatia. Dr.S.S.Wadhra PW7 has also found that bullet was lying on left side of neck. This injury cannot be self suffered. All the three witnesses, namely, Ram Phal PW14, Sadhu Ram PW11 and Karan Singh PW12 had attributed this injury to Maman Singh. Thus, appellant Maman Singh is guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC.
PW11 Sadhu Ram had stated that Devi Chand @ Dei Chand and Shiv Charan had caused injuries with lathies on his person. Sadhu Ram PW11 was medico legally examined by Dr.P.K.Gandhi PW2. Injury No.1 Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [10] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 was caused on the head. Other injuries were caused on non vital part of the body. He had suffered seven injuries on his person. As stated by Sadhu Ram, these injuries were caused by Shiv Charan and Devi Chand @ Dei Chand. PW12 Karan Singh had suffered three blunt injuries. Injuries No.1 and 2 were caused on the head and injury No.3 was caused on the nose. This witness has attributed these injuries to Shiv Charan, Dei Chand, Mahabir and Balak Ram. No specific injury was attributed to Giani Ram, Mai Chand and Ram Karan. No witness has stated that they were armed with any weapon. Therefore, these three accused, as a matter of abundant caution, considering the delay in lodging the report and the fact that complainant party had inflated the number of accused, benefit of doubt can be given to them. Hence, the appeal qua appellants Giani Ram, Mai Chand and Ram Karan is accepted and they are acquitted of the charge.
Appellant Maman Singh is substantively held responsible for offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas accused-appellants Devi Chand, Shiv Charan and Mahabir Singh are held responsible with aid of Section 34 IPC.
Mr.Gill, Mr.Vikram Singh and Mr.Rahul Vats, learned counsel for the appellants have stated that occurrence in the present case had taken place in April, 1996. A period of about 15 years is going to elapse. They state that considering the sufferance of protracted trial, some reduction in sentence be considered.
In these circumstances, sentence awarded to appellant Maman Singh is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to four years rigorous imprisonment. So far as appellants Devi Chand, Shiv Charan and Mahabir Singh are concerned, counsel has submitted that no substantive Crl. Appeal No.1853-SB of 2002 & [11] Crl. Appeal No.90-SB of 2003 sentence has been awarded for the injuries caused by them to Sadhu Ram PW11 and Karan Singh PW12. Counsel state that even though some injuries were kept under observation but as no opinion was received, therefore, the injuries attributed to them were simple in nature. Counsel further state that they have also suffered mental pain and agony of the protracted trial. Considering the role assigned that no injury were attributed to these appellants has been declared grievous and sufferance of protracted trial, their sentence is reduced to 2½ years rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, both the appeals are disposed of.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 24, 2011. JUDGE RC