Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nek Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 27 November, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002.
Date of Decision : 27.11.2013.
Nek Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
The present appeal has been filed by Nek Singh and Ishar Singh-appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appellants were ordered to undergo the following sentences :-
Name of Under Sentence (RI) Fine In Default(RI) Accused Section Nek Singh 325/34, IPC 2 years `500/- 2 months 323, IPC 6 months --- ----
323/34, IPC 6 months --- ---- Ishar Singh 325/34, IPC 2 years `500/- 2 months 323, IPC 6 months ---- ---- Kanchan 323/34, IPC 6 months ---- ---- 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 2
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellants, however, the sentence awarded to them (appellants) is on higher side. The similar situate co-accused, Jagtar Singh, of the appellants was ordered to be released on probation and the same benefit should have been extended to the appellants. He also contends that the appellants are first offenders and the only injury attracting the mischief of Section 325, IPC, was on the left thumb of injured Gurmail Singh (PW1). He also contends that the appellants are ready to compensate the injured Gurmail Singh. He also contends that the motive for the quarrel was with regard to the looking after of the crops sown in the fields, owned by complainant Gurmail Singh, which were on rent with the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the appellants are first offenders and they have been held guilty under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. However, he submits that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view, therefore, there is no much scope for reduction of the sentence in the present case but he was very fair in his submissions when he conceded that in view of the provisions contained in Section 360 Cr.P.C., convict of the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, can be released on probation. Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 3
4. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has opted not to argue the case with regard to the conviction of the appellants yet to satisfy its conscience, this Court has opted to re- scan the whole material available on record.
5. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Gurmail Singh (PW1) lodged the report with the police disclosing that he (complainant) had given 10 killas of his land on batai to Nek Singh-appellant No. 1. On 01.08.2000 at about 7.00 a.m., Gurmail Singh (PW1) went to his fields and at that time, Nek Singh-appellant No. 1 was sitting on the cot near the electric motor. The complainant enquired from Nek Singh-appellant No. 1 as to whether the fertilizer was put in the paddy crop, on which, he replied in a very rude manner that the fertilizer was not sprinkled in the paddy crop. The complainant asked Nek Singh- appellant to open the lock of the room then it was told by Nek Singh that he had to bring the key from his house. The complainant sat on the cot to wait for Nek Singh-appellant. After sometime, Nek Singh-appellant armed with Gandasa, Jagtar Singh and Ishar Singh-appellant No. 2 armed with Soti, and Gango (since acquitted) arrived there. Nek Singh-appellant inflicted an injury by the reverse side of the Gandasa on the left side of the head of Gurmail Singh (complainant). Jagtar Singh inflicted a Soti blow on the thumb of the left hand of Gurmail Singh, whereas Ishar Singh inflicted a Soti blow on the lower portion of his right leg. Jagtar Singh inflicted yet another Soti blow on the left Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 4 shoulder of Gurmail Singh. When the complainant was raising noise then Nek Singh gave two successive blows with reverse side of the Gandasa which landed on the right ankle of Gurmail Singh. As a result of the injuries received, the complainant fell on the ground and in the meantime, Shinder Pal Singh (PW2) arrived at the spot and thereafter, the appellants with their co-accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The clothes worn by the injured were smeared with blood. Gurmail Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Tohana, for treatment. The Medical Officer sent a memo to the Police Station, as a result thereof, ASI Anoop Singh of Police Station, Maniana, arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of Gurmail Singh. The memo was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. The police party went to the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan. Statements of the witnesses in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded. After arrest of the appellant and their co-accused and completion of investigation, charge sheet (report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) was presented before the Learned Area Magistrate.
6. The copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the appellants and their co-accused free of costs as per the provision contained in Section 207, Cr.P.C. Since the offence punishable under Section 308, IPC, was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to that Court.
7. Finding a prima-facie case under Section 308, IPC, Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 5 appellant Nek Singh was charge-sheeted substantively for the said offence while his co-accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34, IPC. Jagtar Singh was substantially charged for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, while the remaining accused were charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. Jagtar Singh, Nek Singh-appellant No. 1 and Ishar Singh-appellant No. 2 were further charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC. The appellants and their co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
8. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :
PW1 : Gurmail Singh (complainant), he not only supported his statement (Ex. PA) recorded by the police on 01.08.2000 but also reiterated the whole occurrence and specifically gave description of each injury caused by the appellants and their co-accused.
PW2 : Shinder Pal Singh is an eye witness of the occurrence and he too supported the case of the prosecution. The entire incident of causing injuries to Gurmail Singh was reiterated by him.
PW3 : Jagdish Chand, Pharmacist, General Hospital, Tohana has produced the bed-head-ticket (Ex. PW3/A) of injured Gurmail Singh (PW1). According Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 6 to him, the injured remained admitted in the hospital from 01.08.2000 to 16.08.2000.
PW4 : Dr. Satish Kumar, M.O. General Hospital, Tohana, has medico-legally examined the injured, Gurmail Singh (PW1), and found as many as five injuries on his person. Except injury no. 2, rest were found to be simple.
PW5 : ASI Babu Singh deposed that on 01.08.2000 after receipt of the post-mortem report from ASI Anup Singh through a police Constable, recorded the formal FIR, Ex. PW5/A. PW6 : ASI Sher Giri deposed regarding the arrest of Ishar Singh, Jagtar Singh and Gango and further deposed that on the application (Ex. PW6/E), the concerned Doctor had given his opinion, Ex. PW6/E-1.
PW7 : ASI Anup Singh deposed regarding the recording of the statement (Ex. PA) of Gurmail Singh and further deposed about the investigation conducted by him.
9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants and their co-accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence appearing against the appellants was not admitted by them, however, appellant Nek Singh took the stand that the land of Gurmail Singh was in his possession on the basis of batai. Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 7 Gurmail Singh wanted to take its possession back and on that account, a quarrel had taken place between Gurmail Singh and Nek Singh near the room, where electric motor was installed. During the altercation, Gurmail Singh fell into a ditch and sustained injuries. It was also stated by Nek Singh-appellant No. 1 that Gurmail Singh had inflicted an injury on his little finger by means of a Kassula (a sharp edged instrument being used by farmers) and resultantly, the little finger was amputated.
10. In order to substantiate its defence, the appellants examined Dr. G.L. Goyal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Moonak, as DW1, who deposed that on 01.08.2000, he had medico legally examined Nek Singh-appellant No. 1 and found one grievous and two simple injuries on his person.
11. After completion of evidence of both the sides, the learned trial court acquitted Smt. Gango but held the appellants and Jagtar Singh guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34, IP,C and Section 325 IPC, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC. Jagtar Singh being 18 years of age, was ordered to be released on probation while the substantive sentences as discussed in the earlier part of the judgment were awarded to the appellants.
12. After going through the deposition of the witnesses of both the sides as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, the learned counsel Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 8 for the appellants has rightly opted not to challenge the conviction of the appellants. The learned trial court has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, and as such their conviction for the said offences are maintained.
13. Their appears to be substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants when he submits that though the maximum sentence prescribed for commission of the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC, is rigorous imprisonment for 7 years yet in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants deserve to be given the benefit of probation. Either of the appellants is neither a previous convict nor involved in any other case. In other words, both the appellants are first offenders. The similar situate co-accused Jagtar Singh was ordered to be released on probation by the trial court. The occurrence had taken place more than 13 years ago on account of improper maintenance of the crops by the appellants, who had taken the land of the complainant, Gurmail Singh, on batai. During the course of trial and appeal, the appellants were on bail but the said concession was not misused by them. No untoward incident had occurred after the incident in question. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Hansa Vs. State of Punjab, Punjab, AIR 1977 (SC) 1991; Akhtar and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2013(2) Law Herald 1016; Hoi Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2012(1) Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 9 RCR (Criminal) 217; Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 379 and Raghunath and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 784.
14. Jagtar Singh, the co-accused of the appellants, who was ordered to be released on probation by the learned trial court had, in fact, caused the injury on the person of Gurmail Singh attracting the mischief of Section 325, IPC, and he was substantively held guilty for the said offence. The appellants were convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC. Both the appellants are the first offenders. On account of maintenance of the crops, a quarrel had taken place more than 13 years ago. During the bail period, the appellants did not misuse the said concession. The appellants are also ready to adequately compensate the injured, Gurmail Singh. The ratio of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants clearly support his stand. In all the cases cited here-in-above, the accused, who were convicted for Section 325, IPC, etc., were ordered to be released on probation.
15. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the quarrel ensued and the fact that the petitioners are the first offenders, this Court is of the considered opinion that they deserve to be ordered to be released on probation. Therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants is accepted. The execution of the substantive sentence of the appellants is Kanchan 2014.01.14 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRA No. S-1819-SB of 2002 10 suspended and they are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years from the date, they execute the bonds in that regard in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. During the period of probation, the appellants shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. If both the appellants or either of them violates the conditions of the bonds to be furnished before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, then they will be called to appear and serve out the remaining part of their sentence. Each of the appellants, namely, Nek Singh and Ishar Singh would pay `25000/- (`25,000/- + `25,000/- = `50,000/-) to injured Gurmail Singh (PW1) as compensation. The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the appellants with learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within two month of passing of this order or at the time of execution of the bonds whichever is earlier.
16. With the above modifications in the quantum of sentence the present appeal is partly allowed.
November 27, 2013. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2014.01.14 17:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh