Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA No.96-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.96-SB of 2002
Date of decision:03.08.2010
Pargat Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Yatharth Hans, Advocate,
for the complainant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 21.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur (for short `the Trial Court'), whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted and accordingly sentenced as under:-
Accused Pargat Singh:
Section To undergo R.I. for Fine In default of payment of fine 326 IPC 3 years Rs.1000/- 20 days 325/34 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days 324 IPC 1 year -- --
324 IPC 1 year -- --
323/34 IPC 6 months -- -- 379 IPC 1 year -- -- CRA No.96-SB of 2002 2 Accused Jarmej Singh: Section To undergo R.I. for Fine In default of payment of fine 326/34 IPC 1 year Rs.500/- 10 days 325 IPC 2 year Rs.1000/- 20 days 324/34 IPC 6 months -- -- 324/34 IPC 6 months -- -- 323 IPC 6 months -- --
2. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. The facts, as noticed by the Trial Court in para Nos. 2 & 3 of its judgment, are re-produced as under:
"2. Complainant Jaswant Singh is resident of village Killi and is running a pesticide shop in Basti Bhatian Ferozepur City. On 12.6.99, he alongwith his wife Surjit Kaur and his children was going on a car to village Dulchike, when the car reached near the octroi post Hasti Bhatian at about 6/6.30 P.M. he applied breaks due to the blockage of traffic by tractor trolleys. In the meantime, Kuldip Singh, Pargat Singh armed with a small gandasi and Jarmej Singh armed with hockey came there. Kuldip Singh was driving the Hero Honda and Pargat Singh and Jarmej Singh were doing pillion riding.
Kuldip Singh accused parked the Hero Honda and dragged the complainant out of the car by pulling him from his hair. Accused Pargat Singh inflicted a gandasi blow from its sharp edged side which hit the complainant on the left hand side of his neck. Accused Jarmej Singh inflicted the hockey blows on the shoulder and on the back of the complainant. Accused Pargat Singh inflicted 2/3 gandasi blows to the complainant. He raised his right hand to save himself and the blow hit on the fingers of his right hand. Jarmej Singh accused inflicted a hockey blow on the biceps of left arms of the complainant. In the meantime, Surjit Singh wife of the complainant came out of the car and tried to rescue the complainant but accused Jarmej Singh inflicted hockey blow on her left arm. The wife of the CRA No.96-SB of 2002 3 complainant raised alarm and on hearing her voice, many people assembled at the spot. The accused ran away from the spot on the said Hero Honda alongwith their respective weapons. While going accused Pargat Singh also took away one 12 bore double barrel licenced rifle bearing No.A/1-13512 of the complainant. In the meantime, Tara Singh father of the complainant came at the spot. He arranged for a vehicle and got the injured admitted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. The motive for causing the injuries is that Pargat Singh etc. had a water dispute with Bohar Singh brother of the complainant and due to this he had a verbal altercation with the complainant.
3. On 13.6.99, on receipt of copies of MLR of injured Jaswant Singh and Surjit Kaur, ASI Malook Singh alongwith other police officials went to civil hospital, Ferozepur and gave an application to the Doctor on duty for recording the statement of injured Jaswant Singh but he was declared unfit to make a statement. On the same day, he again went to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and gave another application to the Doctor on duty for getting his opinion. Injured Jaswant Singh was declared fit to make a statement. ASI Malook Singh recorded the statement of injured Jaswant Singh. After that it was read over to him and he thumb marked the statement. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. The investigation was conducted by ASI Malook Singh. He recorded the statement of Surjit Kaur and the other witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan. The opinion of the Doctor regarding the nature of injuries was obtained and after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court."
4. The accused/appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 307/326/325/323/382/34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, accused Kuldip Singh was released on probation.
CRA No.96-SB of 2002 4
5. In order to prove its case, the accused/appellants examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, ASI Malook Singh as PW1; Janak Singh, Ammunition Clerk as PW2; Dr. Mahesh Chander as PW3; Complainant Jaswant Singh as PW4; Surjit Kaur as PW5; Inspector Ram Singh as PW6; SI Jagat Singh as PW7 and Dr. Jajbir Singh Sandhu as PW8.
6. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. In defence, the accused/appellants examined Chamkaur Singh, Canal Patwari, as DW1.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment.
8. The present appeal was admitted on 16.1.2002 by this Court and the appellants were enlarged on bail.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment and order of conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. He has further submitted that the appellants suffered protracted trial for about 11 years.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State has furnished custody certificates, which are taken on record, and submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellants since the offence has been proved.
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another"
observed as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the CRA No.96-SB of 2002 5 parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment"
12. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents."
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly".
13. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case is of the year 1999 and the appellants have faced the agony of protracted CRA No.96-SB of 2002 6 trial for about 11 years. They have not mis-used the concession of bail and no previous antecedents have been brought to surface so as to condemn them as habitual offenders.
14. Keeping in view the fact that the accused-appellants have faced the agony of trial for about 11 years and as stated, are not habitual offenders, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, their conviction stands maintained.
15. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the appellants, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- to be shared by both the appellants equally for being paid to the complainant as compensation besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In addition thereto, the appellants shall pay the costs of the litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- also to be shared equally by them, which shall be remitted to the State within the afore-stated stipulated period.
16. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed.
17. With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.
03.08.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No