Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 5 September, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-217-SB of 2000
Date of Decision : 05.09.2013
Baljeet Singh and others ........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana ........Respondent
CRR No.1144 of 2000
Date of Decision : 05.09.2013
Ram Sarup .........Petitioner
Vs.
Baljeet and others .........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Ms.Diepa Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for
Mr.P.S.Kang, Advocate,
for the complainant.
******
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.(Oral)
CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 and CRR No.1144 of 2000 are being disposed of by this common judgment since both petitioners are arising out of one and the same judgment of conviction and sentence. However, the facts of the case are being taken up from the Criminal Appeal.
Anil Kumar2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 2
Challenge in the appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2000 and order of sentence dated 2.02.2000, whereby the appellants were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with 34, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences:-
Name of Under Section Sentence Fine (in `) In Default (R.I) convict (R.I) Baljeet Singh 307 read with 3 years 3000 6 months Section 34 IPC 323 read with 6 months ....... .......
Section 34 IPC Ranjeet Singh 307 read with 3 years 3000 6 months Section 34 IPC 323 read with 6 months ....... .......
Section 34 IPC Prabhi Devi 307 read with 3 years 3000 6 months Section 34 IPC 323 read with 6 months ....... .......
Section 34 IPC The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The criminal revision petition has been filed by complainant Ram Sarup for enhancement of substantive sentences of the appellants and award of compensation to the injured.
The brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.1998 at 8.30 p.m, Ram Sarup (PW-2) suffered statement (Ex.PB) to Head Constable Babu Ram (PW-9) alleging that the house of Raj Kishan injured (PW11) and Prabhi Devi (appellant No.3) were situate on a link road at Village Rajoli, District Ambala. Appellant-Prabhi Devi had embeded pegs (wooden logs fixed in Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 3 the earth to tie cattle) in the street for tethering her cattle. The complainant Ram Sarup, PW-2, had requested to appellant- Prabhi Devi several times to remove those pegs but she refused to do so. On 06.01.1998, complainant-Ram Sarup, PW-2, removed those pegs and went to his house. Thereafter, appellant No.3- Prabhi Devi came there at 9:30 a.m. and started calling in bad names. Complainant-Ram Sarup (PW-2) and his uncle Raj Kishan (PW-11) also reached the spot. Raj Kishan (PW-11) asked appellant-Prabhi Devi as to why she was calling in bad names. In the meantime, appellant No.1-Baljeet Singh, armed with "Gandasi" (Ex.P-2), appellant No.2-Ranjeet Singh armed with peg (Ex.P-3), came on the spot and proclaimed that the complainant party be taught a lesson for removing the pegs from the street. Appellant No.1-Baljeet Singh inflicted a gandasi blow from its reverse side on the head of Raj Kishan. Appellant-Ranjit Singh also inflicted a peg blow on the right eye of Raj Kishan. Appellant-Prabhi Devi gave fists and slap blows. Kashmira Ram alias Kashmira (since deceased) used lathi (Ex.P1) for causing injury on the person of Raj Kishan. Hans Raj (not examined) and Raj Kumar (PW-4) also came on the spot and on seeing them, the assailants took to their heels along with their respective weapons and before leaving they threatened the complainant side with dire consequences.
Injured Raj Kishan (PW-11) was carried to Civil Hospital, Mullana, where he was medico-legally examined by Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 4 Dr.Anuj Mangala (PW10). From Mullana Hospital, the injured was referred to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, where he was radiologically examined by Dr.Vijay Bansal (PW-1) and thereafter considering the condition to be very serious, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on the next day, where he was treated by Dr.Rajesh Chhabra (PW-3) and remained admitted up to 17.02.1998. The Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mullana, informed the police about arrival of injured, Raj Kishan, and Prabhi Devi-appellant No.3 in the hospital. The Inquiry Officer moved an application (Ex.PK) to the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Ambala City, for obtaining opinion regarding the fitness of injured, Raj Kishan, for the purpose of recording his statement but he was declared unfit to make statement vide opinions Ex.PD/1 and Ex.PE/1. Then the statement (Ex.PB) of Ram Sarup (PW2) was recorded on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PQ) was registered and the police machinery was set into motion. The place of occurrence was inspected and the site plan (Ex.PN) was prepared. Statement of appellant-Prabhi Devi was also recorded on 08.01.1998 at Civil Hospital, Ambala City. On 12.01.1998, Sub-Inspector Phool Chand (PW-13) arrested the three appellants and their co-accused Kashmira (since deceased) and they produced the weapons Exs.P-1, P-2, P-3. After preparing sketches of the said weapons, the same were taken into police possession as per recovery memos. After obtaining the opinion of the doctor that the injury on the person of Raj Kishan was dangerous to life, Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 5 Section 307, IPC, was added. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C) was presented before learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Since the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, was exclusively triable by the court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the latter Court by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. vide order dated 29.04.1998.
The appellants and their co-accused, Kashmira, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323, both read with Section 34, IPC.
In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
PW-1 Dr.Vijay Bansal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, had radiologically examined Raj Kishan, injured, on 06.01.1998 and found the fracture of skull bones.
PW-2 Ram Sarup: On his statement, the FIR was registered. He is an eye witness of the occurrence and has fully supported the prosecution version.
PW-3 Dr.Rajesh Chhabra, Senior Resident, Neuro Surgery, PGI Chandigarh: He treated injured Raj Kishan from 07.01.1998 till the discharge from hospital on 17.02.1998. The witness deposed about the operation of the injured for removal of haematoma. He also deposed about the post operative respiratory problems, for which tracheostomy was done. It was also deposed that Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 6 the patient gradually showed improvement and was discharged in conscious state on 17.02.1998. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that eye of the patient was black due to the injury received on the head. It was also narrated that the injury was dangerous to life.
PW-4 Raj Kumar was an eye-witness and had fully supported the prosecution version.
PW-5 Ram Saran had prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PF.
PW-6 H.C Kulwant Singh deposed that on 12.01.1998 while being posted as MHC in Police Station, Mullana, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer, Phool Chand (PW-13) had deposited three sealed parcels containing lathi, gandasi and a peg with him.
PW-7 Head Constable Gurmeet Singh had partly investigated the case. On 30.03.1998, he had visited village Rajoli and recorded the statement of Raj Kishan (PW11) in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that Raj Kishan was in a position to answer the questions and after recording the statement, the same was read over to him and Raj Kishan admitted the same to be true.
PW-8 Nand Ram deposed that on 12.01.1998 in his presence, the appellants and their co-
accused, Kashmira, were produced before the police and they produced their weapons, Ex-P1 to Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 7 P3, before the investigating officer. The weapons were sealed and the seal after use was handed over to Des Raj. The weapons were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos, Ex.PG, PH and PJ.
PW-9 H.C.Babu Ram had partly investigated the matter.
PW-10 Dr.Anuj Mangla deposed that on 06.01.1998, while being posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Mullana, he had medico-legally examined Raj Kishan and found a lacerated would of 3'' X 1cm X ½ cm. in size on the head. Blood was oozing and mild swelling was present around the wound. The eyelid on the right side was blue and swollen. The patient was semi-conscious and was vomiting blood. He had sent memo (Ex.PO) to Incharge, Police Station, Mullana, regarding the admission of the injured. On 09.01.1998, he declared the injury to be dangerous to life vide opinion (Ex.PP/1). He also deposed that the patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Ambala City, for further treatment. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that on 06.01.1998 at 1.45 p.m, he had medico-
legally examined Prabhi Devi and found an incised wound of 1'' X 3MM X 1MM on the left forearm on medial aspect, 2'' above the wrist. Blood was oozing and there was mild swelling around the wound. X-ray of the left forearm was advised. In the cross-examination, it was further admitted by the witness that the blackening of eye of Raj Kishan was on account of head injury Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 8 and no independent injury was found on the right eye of Raj Kishan.
PW-11 Raj Kishan injured though appeared before the learned trial Court but his deposition could not be recorded since he was unable to answer the rational questions put to him by the Court. The learned trial Court observed that the mental faculty of Raj Kishan was not working properly and his memory had impaired.
PW-12 Assistant Sub Inspector Padam Singh had recorded the formal FIR (Ex.PQ) on the basis of Police memo (Ex.PB) received from Head Constable Babu Ram, PW-9.
PW-13 Inspector Phool Chand had also partly investigated the matter and deposed regarding the arrest of the appellants; recovery of the weapons of offence and the investigation conducted by him besides presentation of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
During the process of recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Kashmira Singh, the co-accused of the appellants, had died, therefore, the proceedings qua him were dropped.
After completion of the prosecution evidence the statements of the appellants in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. In answer to the last question, appellant No.1 Baljeet Singh stated as under:-
"I and my father were not present on the scene of occurrence. In fact there was dispute between my Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 9 Chachi Prabhi and Ram Sarup when my Chachi restrained Raj Kishan and Ram Sarup from removing those pegs. Raj Kishan fell on those pegs as it was all slippery. As my Chachi is a widow there is no body to support her. Tomorrow, in future, we may not support her. We have been named by the complainant. Me being Lambardar of the village."
Appellant No.2 Ranjit Singh in answer to the last question stated as under:-
"In fact, these pegs were in existence prior to Hans Raj's buying my adjoining house from Hari Ram. This was not a public street where these pegs were dug. This passage was used and is being used by the occupants of only two houses that is ours and that of Hari Ram. Both of us had dug those pegs for tying our animals and this dispute between both the families started when Hans Raj bought the house from Hari Ram. On the day of occurrence when Ram Sarup was restrained by my mother while he was removing those pegs and in this process my mother received injury on her wrist of her left arm. When I tried to save her and restrain them Raj Kishan fell down on those pegs as it was all slippery. In this process his head struck against those pegs. My Taya Kashmira and his son Baljeet were not there on the spot. They have been named as Baljeet, son of my Taya is Lambardar of the village and my mother is a widow and in future Baljeet and his father may not defend us so they have been falsely named."Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 10
Appellant No.3 Prabhi Devi in answer to the last question stated as under:-
"In fact, these pegs were in existence prior to Hans Raj's buying my adjoining house from Hari Ram. This was not a public street where these pegs were dug. This passage was used and is being used by the occupants of only two houses that is me and that of Hari Ram. Both of us had dug those pegs for tying our animals and this dispute between both the families started when Hans Raj bought the house from Hari Ram. On the day of occurrence when Ram Sarup was restrained by me while he was removing those pegs, and in this process I received injury on my wrist of left arm. When my son tried to save me and restrain them, Raj Kishan fell on those pegs as it was all slippery and muddy. In this process his head struck against those pegs. My Jeth Kashmira and his son Baljeet were not there on the spot. They have been named as Baljeet, son of my brother-in-law is Lambardar of the village and I am a widow and in future Baljeet and his father may not defend me so they have been falsely named."
In their defence, the appellants examined Virender Kumar, Assistant Complaint Clerk, S.P.Office, Ambala, as DW-1. He deposed that the complaint (Ex.DA) by Baljeet Singh was received in the S.P. Office. On the basis of the same, Station House Officer, Police Station, Mullana, had conducted the inquiry and recorded the statements of several persons and on the basis of the inquiry, the SHO submitted report, Ex.DB. Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 11 Nirmal Singh was produced as DW-2 but nothing material in favour of the either party could be elicited from his statement.
After completion of the evidence of both sides, the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323, both read with 34, IPC, and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, as has been narrated in the initial part of this judgment.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a delay of 11 hours in reporting the matter to the police; the injured, Raj Kishan, appeared before the court below as PW-11 but his statement was not recorded finding that his mental faculty was not fit for recording his statement; the prosecution has not come with clean hands inasmuch as the genesis of the incident has been suppressed; the injury on the person of appellant-Prabhi Devi has not been explained; the X-ray report of Prabhi Devi has been concealed by the prosecution; the complainant party uprooted the pegs from the place of occurrence which were concededly existing there prior to the occurrence for the last several months; no independent witness was produced to support the statement of Ram Sarup (PW-2), the only eyewitness of the occurrence, who was nephew of injured Raj Kishan; that there was only one injury on the person of injured Raj Kishan for which 4 persons were implicated and that the doctors had also found only one injury on the person of injured Raj Kishan. She also pointed out that the alleged Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 12 occurrence had taken place at 9:30 a.m. while the injured was medico-legally examined at 12:00 noon and no explanation for such delayed medical examination has been furnished; the injuries on the person of Raj Kishan were not corroborated by the ocular testimony; the weapons alleged to have been recovered from the appellants and their co-accused, Kashmira, were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for detection of blood; that the statement of injured Raj Kishan in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C, was allegedly recorded by Head Constable Babu Ram (PW-9) on 30.03.1998 and once he was fit to make a statement at that time, therefore there was no reason for him for not making statement before the Court, when stepped into witness-box.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that learned trial Court had taken a reasonable view and awarded the suitable sentence. Therefore, there is no force in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that appellants had caused the injury on the person of Raj Kishan with an intention to cause his death which had clearly attracted the mischief of Section 307, IPC. She further submits that from the recovery of the peg (Annexure P-3) from appellant No.2, Ranjit Singh, it should be presumed by the Court that he had caused the injury on the right eyelid of injured Raj Kishan Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 13 and that concededly the complainant side was empty handed and as such there was no occasion for them to cause sharp edged injury on the person of Prabhi Devi. She further submitted that Raj Kishan, the injured, did appear before the Court below, however, the Court opted not to record his statement and as such, there is no fault on the part of the prosecution. She further submitted that the injured was aged about 40 years at the time of incident and he had not fully recovered in spite of post medical aid provided to him and ultimately died after 5 years of the incident, leaving behind a widow and 4 minor children, therefore, adequate compensation be awarded to the dependants of the injured, Raj Kishan (now deceased).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record.
The delay in reporting the matter to the police has to be considered in view of the attending circumstances of the case. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place at 9:30 a.m. while the matter to the police was reported at 8:30 p.m. The injured had only one injury on his head as per Dr.Anuj Mangla, PW-10. According to the prosecution, appellant No.1 was armed with gandasi, appellant No.2 with a peg (khunta) and their co-accused, Kashmira, was armed with a lathi and all of them caused injuries on the person of Raj Kishan. The ocular version to the extent that Ranjit, Prabhi Devi and Kashmira caused injuries on the person of Raj Kishan and he did not Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 14 receive any injury on any part of his body does not inspire confidence. Delay in this case had been used to implicate as many as persons as the complainant side desired. While dealing with this proposition, this court is conscious of the fact that the delay by itself is not sufficient to throw away the whole case of the prosecution. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from the chaff. If the depositions of PW2, Ram Sarup, and PW-4, Raj Kumar, are examined in view of the medical evidence available on record then it is apparent that the ocular evidence is in contradiction of the medical evidence and as such, taking into consideration the delay of 11 hours and the contradictory evidence with regard to the injuries on the person of Raj Kishan, the appellants Ranjit and Prabhi Devi can be extended the benefit of doubt in the present case and accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
So far as appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, is concerned, it has been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PQ), and the depositions of Ram Sarup (PW-2) and Raj Kumar (PW-4) that he caused injury on the skull of Raj Kishan resulting into fracture of multiple bones of the skull. The intention has to be gathered from the attending circumstances. There is no doubt that the pegs were available on the spot for the last several months prior to the date of occurrence but those were uprooted by the complainant, Ram Sarup, about one and a-half-hour prior to the occurrence and if the appellants had any grouse from the Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 15 misdeed of the complainant then they should have approached the public authorities for redressal of their grievances. Taking of law in hands by appellant Baljeet Singh and causing injury by deadly weapon like gandasi, from its reverse side, clearly spells out that he had intention to cause death of Raj Kishan. This fact is further fortified from the medical evidence, according to which, there were multiple fractures of bones of his skull.
The medical evidence, the eyewitness account, and the investigation conducted by H.C. Babu Ram (PW-9) and Sub-Inspector Phool Chand (PW-13), clearly established that appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, had caused the injury by means of gandasi (Ex.P2) on the skull of Raj Kishan, attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC. Therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly held him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. However, there is no other injury on the person of Raj Kishan, the only injured, therefore, the conviction and the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC, is not sustainable and, as such, he is acquitted of the said charge.
In this case, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1998; during the pendency of the trial and the present appeal, appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, remained on bail but he never misused the said concession; appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, was Lambardar of the village, Rajoli, and, in fact, there was no dispute between appellant No.1 and the complainant side because the pegs on the place of occurrence were embeded by Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 16 Prabhi Devi, and Raj Kishan and Ram Sarup had the grouse for such pegs; even after lapse of approximately 15 years, no untoward incident had taken place; and that appellant No.1 is the first offender, therefore, some concession in the substantive sentence deserves to be extended in favour of appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh. Accordingly, his substantive sentence is reduced to RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. Further, keeping in view the fact that the injured, Raj Kishan, had received multiple fractures of bone of his skull and remained under treatment for a long time and ultimately died, the legal representatives of injured Raj Kishan (now deceased) are entitled to compensation. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that appellant Baljeet Singh is not only a Lambardar of the village but also a Mason by avocation and owns 6 killas of land in village Rajoli. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant No.1 Baljeet Singh is directed to pay a sum of `2,00,000/- as compensation to the dependants/legal representatives of injured (now deceased) Raj Kishan. The amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court, if deposited, shall be adjusted in the amount of compensation awarded by this Court. The amount of compensation shall be deposited within one month of passing of this order with learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, and if appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, in that eventuality, the order of sentence with regard to the offence Anil Kumar 2013.09.23 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-217-SB of 2000 17 punishable under section 307, IPC, passed by learned trial Court shall enure qua appellant No.1. As soon as appellant No.1, Baljeet Singh, deposits the amount of compensation, notices be issued to the legal representatives of Raj Kishan son of Punu Ram, aged 40 years, resident of village Rajoli, for distribution of the amount of compensation to them in equal shares.
With the above modifications in the impugned judgment and the order of sentence, the present appeal is partly allowed and CRR No.1144 of 2000 is disposed of accordingly.
05.09.2013 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
anil JUDGE
Anil Kumar
2013.09.23 10:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document