Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 21-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: 1 - 3 - 2011
Manjit Kaur and others .....Appellants
v.
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.O.P.Kamboj, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.B.S.Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate
for the complainant - respondent No.2.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present appeal has been filed by Manjit Kaur, her son Bikramjit Singh @ Bhutto and her husband's younger brother Anoop Singh. They were tried in a private complaint instituted at the instance of Sukhdev Singh injured PW3.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur vide its judgment dated 13.12.2002 held the appellants guilty of offence under Sections 326,450, 323, 506, 34 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced them as under:-
Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [2]
1. Accused Bikramjit Singh He is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 326 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month under Section 450 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months each under Sections 323, 506/34 IPC.
2. Accused Manjit Kaur She is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 326/34 IPC. She is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 1 months under Section 450/34 IPC. She is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 323 IPC and further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 323/34 IPC.
She is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 506 IPC.
3. Accused Anup Singh He is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 326/34 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month under section 450/34 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months under section 323 IPC and further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months under section 323/34 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [3] months under section 506 IPC.
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 28.11.1997 at about 5.30 P.M. An FIR was lodged at the instance of Sukhdev Singh PW3 on 2.12.1997 at 9.40 A.M. Thus, there was a delay of 4 days in lodging the report to the police. The police had opted not to pursue the FIR, which led the complainant to file a complaint in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate on 9.3.1998. Thus, the complaint was filed after 1 year and 4 months of the occurrence. The FIR has been brought on record as Ex.PC.
In his testimony in Court, Sukhdev Singh PW3 stated that his house abuts the house of Manjit Kaur. Bikramjit Singh @ Bhutto is son of Manjit Kaur and Anoop Singh is younger brother of her husband. On 28.11.1997 at about 5.30 P.M., complainant and his mother Kartar Kaur were collecting the remaining material after completion of their toilet. Manjit Kaur armed with a batton, Bikramjit Singh armed with a Gandasi and Anoop Singh armed with a Kappa abruptly entered their house. A lalkara was raised by Manjit Kaur that Sukha be taught a lesson for constructing a toilet after closing the door. Thereafter, she gave a batton blow on the back side of his waist. Bikramjit Singh gave a Gandasi blow from its sharp side on the back side of his lower left leg. As a result of which, complainant fell down. While Sukhdev Singh was lying on the ground, Anoop Singh gave a blow from the wooden handle of his kappa on his chest. Complainant had a pain in his chest and the blood was oozing from his leg. Meanwhile, Buta Singh, his brother had reached the spot, upon which the accused ran away from the spot. While leaving the spot, the accused kicked the flush seat and stated that today Sukhdev Singh had survived but in future they will not spare him. Sukhdev Singh PW3 was Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [4] brought to the hospital at Mamdot where he was medico legally examined. Police recorded the statement of Sukhdev Singh upon which FIR Ex.PC/P5 was registered but the police had not presented the challan, therefore, a private complaint was filed by complainant PW3 Sukhdev Singh.
In the present case Sukhdev Singh complainant is the injured. He was medico legally examined by Dr.Jarnail Singh PW1 who found following three injuries on his person:-
1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm on the anterior aspect of left lower leg in its middle, underlying bone was cut. Wound was transverse in direction.
2. A contusion around the zifi sternum 8 cm x 12 cm on the chest. Acute pain and swelling was there. X-ray was advised.
3. A contusion 6 cm x 8 cm on the lower side of back at lumber region. Acute pain and swelling was present.
Sukhdev Singh was examined on 29.11.1997 at 7.00 A.M. For three injuries on the person of complainant Sukhdev Singh, three accused have been named. Injury No.1 is attributed to Bikramjit Singh @ Bhutto appellant, injury No.2 has been attributed to Anoop Singh appellant and injury No.3 has been attributed to Manjit Kaur appellant.
Complainant had examined only three witnesses, namely, Dr.Jarnail Singh PW1, who medico legally examined him, HC Sham Lal PW2 who was summoned to produce record of the FIR and complainant himself appeared as PW3.
There are three features of this case, which this Court ought to notice:-
(a) That FIR in the present case was lodged after a delay of 4 days.
Even though Buta Singh brother of the complainant was Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [5] present, he had made no effort to lodge the report. Similarly, Kartar Kaur who was an eye witness of the occurrence had not made any effort to lodge the report to the police.
(b) There are only three injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh for which three accused have been roped in. Injury No.1 was caused by an incised weapon, whereas injuries No.2 and 3 were caused with blunt weapon. Thus, in the occurrence two weapons have been used.
(c) That the version of the complainant was not found true by the Investigating Agency and they had not opted to file the challan against the accused which led the complainant to institute the complaint after 1 year and 4 months of the occurrence. In view of the circumstances explained above, a duty is cast upon the Court to sift the grain from the chaff. Taking into consideration the delay in lodging of the FIR, it cannot be ruled out that complainant has inflated the number of accused after due consultations and deliberations. Manjit Kaur is a lady of the house. Her son and younger brother of her husband had gone at the place of occurrence. There was no need for Manjit Kaur to accompany them and that too to cause a simple injury on the back of Sukhdev Singh. Thus, in view of the circumstances enumerated above, the benefit of doubt can be extended to Manjit Kaur.
In the present case, the grievous injury is on the leg of the complainant which is a non vital part of the body. Out of three injuries suffered by the complainant, only one injury is grievous. Occurrence in the present case has taken place in the year 1997. A period of 14 years is going to elapse. Taking into consideration the sufferance of mental pain and agony Crl. Appeal No.21-SB of 2003 [6] of the protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to Bikramjit Singh @ Bhutto and Anup Singh appellants is suitably reduced. Hence, the sentence awarded to both of them is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.
Subject to the modification in the order of sentence, the appeal qua Bikramjit Singh @ Bhutto and Anup Singh appellants is dismissed. However, the appeal qua appellant Manjit Kaur is accepted and she is acquitted of the charge.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 1, 2011. JUDGE RC