Punjab-Haryana High Court
) Crl.A. No. S 1555 Sb Of 2003 (O&M) vs State Of Punjab on 21 November, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1) Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision : 21.11.2013
...
Gurjit Singh and another
................Appellants
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
2) Crl.R. No. 892 of 2004 (O&M)
...
Kuldip Singh
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate
for the appellants.
Sh. S.S. Chandumajra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
Sh. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Sh. Paras Talwar, Advocate for the complainant/revisionist
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Chugh Banita
2013.12.18 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -2-
Vide this judgment, I intend to dispose of Crl.A.No.S 1555 SB of 2003 titled as Gurjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and Crl.R.No. 892 of 2004 titled as Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, as both these cases have arisen out of the same judgment.
Gurjit Singh and Kulwant Singh - accused appellants have directed the appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 passed by Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which accused appellant Gurjit Singh has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, whereas, accused appellant Kulwant Singh has been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
Briefly stated, SHO Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, sent the accused appellants to face trial for offence under Section 302/34 IPC in respect of FIR No. 135 dated 3.4.2000 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.
The facts of the case as gathered from the record are that complainant Kuldip Singh made statement to the police, wherein he has stated that on 3.4.2000 complainant alongwith his father Iqbal Singh was coming back from Ludhiana after a court hearing towards their village on scooter and at about 4.45 p.m. when they reached near Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -3- the bus stand of their village Dhandra Jattan, in front of the shop of barber, Gurjit Singh and Kulwant Singh were grappling with his brother Mandeep Singh. Kulwant Singh had caught hold of both the arms of Mandeep Singh from behind and Gurjit Singh was saying that today they will teach him a lesson for lodging a protest. Gurjit Singh took out a dagger from his dub and gave blow in the chest of Mandeep Singh. Mandeep Singh raised alarm 'Maar Ditta - Maar Ditta' and fell on the ground and became unconscious. The complainant alongwith his grandfather started taking care of his brother and in the meantime Gurjit Singh and Kulwant Singh ran away towards the village. Mandeep Singh was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared dead. Motive for the occurrence was that a few days back Gurjit Singh without asking them took the tractor-trolly from their house and his brother Mandeep Singh lodged a protest with the father of Gurjit Singh namely, Sukhdev Singh and on the same day Gurjit Singh abused his brother Mandeep Singh and they exchanged hot words but his grandfather Iqbal Singh intervened. Gurjit Singh and Kulwant Singh were nursing a grudge on that account.
After investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of documents were supplied to them as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -4- examined PW-1 ASI Baj Singh, PW-2 Dr. Ashok Raswant, PW-2 Constable Pardeep Kumar, (wrongly numbered) PW-3 Constable Surinder Singh, PW-4 Mohinder Singh, photographer, PW-5 Kuldip Singh complainant, PW-6 Iqbal Singh eye witness, PW-7 SI Bhupinder Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-8 HC Rajinder Singh, PW-9 Constable Kanwardeep singh, PW-10 SI Maninder Singh Bedi and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner.
The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. Accused Gurjit Singh has further stated that he was not present and was coming from the neighbouring village and was told about the occurrence. The deceased was his fast friend. He came to the barber shop, where he was having beard cut. Mandeep Singh was in abbrivated state and started feeding and joking with him under the influence of liquor and caught hold of his testicles. He tried to get himself released from Mandeep Singh but he was pressing his testicles. He picked up scissors from the barber shop and in order to get himself released wielded the scissors which hit Mandeep Singh.
The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, DW-2 Gokal Chand and closed their evidence.
Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Gurjit Singh under Section 304 Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -5- Part II and accused appellant Kulwant Singh under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, as narrated above. However, they were acquitted under Section 302/34 IPC.
Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 14.8.2003, the accused appellants have preferred Crl.A.No.S- 1555 SB of 2003, whereas complainant Kuldip Singh has preferred Crl.R.No. 892 of 2004 against the said judgment for convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC instead of under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has given a definite finding that offence was committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the offender had not taken any undue advantage and the offender had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It has been further observed by the trial Court that story of the prosecution taking out of a dagger by Gurjit Singh from his dub is doubtful. The trial Court has believed the testimony of Sukhdev Singh and Gokal Chand, who have deposed that in a spur of moment, Gurjit Singh picked up a pair of scissors and gave blow which proved fatal. So, in these circumstances, Kulwant Singh has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court, inspite of the said finding. The finding of the trial Court that Kulwant Singh caught hold the arms of Mandeep Singh is contrary to its earlier finding that in a spur of moment, appellant Gurjit Singh has given a scissors blow. It is further submitted that injury with dagger has not been proved even by the finding of the trial Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -6- Court. So, prayer has been made that appellant Kulwant Singh may kindly be acquitted.
In respect of Gurjit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he has already undergone incarceration for a period of 6 years, 2 months and 19 days, including remissions of 2 years, 1 month and 6 days, out of the substantive sentence of 8 years awarded by the trial Court under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in authority reported as Khanjan Pal vs. State of U.P. (1990) 4 Supreme Court Cases 53, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was over 1 year in that case, in respect of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, where the accused was facing trial for the last 12 years. It is further submitted, that this Court in Crl.A.No. S-626 SB of 1999 titled as Malta Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 15.9.2009, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was 3 years, 11 months and 24 days, under Section 304 Part II IPC, in that case, where only one blow was given.
Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
Counsel for the complainant has not argued about the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, but has submitted that in both the abovesaid rulings, relied upon by counsel for the appellants, compensation was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. So, the order be passed accordingly.
I have considered the submissions, made by counsel for both Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -7- the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.
Learned trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of its judgment held that deceased and accused were friends and there was no enmity prior to the occurrence. The said fact was also admitted by Kuldip Singh complainant, as well as, Investigating Officer of the case. The trial Court in paragraph No. 14 further observed that occurrence took place within a spur of moment and only one blow was given by accused Gurjit Singh and there was no attempt on his part to give second blow. The trial Court has further observed that prosecution version that injury was caused by dagger cannot be believed on account of various reasons given in the judgment. So, the prosecution version of taking out of the dagger from the dub while Kulwant Singh was holding Mandeep Singh from arms, was disbelieved. The trial Court further observed in its judgment that defence version that injury was caused by Gurjit Singh by scissors, as stated by Sukhdev Singh and Gokal Chand, has to be accepted. So, inspite of the said finding, the conviction of Kulwant Singh under Section 304 Part II IPC, cannot sustain the test of legal scrutiny. Once the story of the prosecution holding of arms by Kulwant Singh has been disbelieved by the trial Court and inspite of that finding, conviction of Kulwant Singh under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, is bad in the eyes of law. No other overtact has been attributed to Kulwant Singh. Consequently, the appeal preferred by Kulwant Singh stands accepted. The judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 passed by Additional and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, qua Kulwant Singh stands Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -8- set aside and he stands acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
So far as the quantum of sentence and compensation demanded by counsel for the complainant/revisionist is concerned, in my view, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of Gurjit Singh is reduced to the period already undergone, which is 6 years, 2 months and 19 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khanjan Pal 's case (Supra) reduced the sentence to already undergone which was more than 1 year in respect of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. However, compensation to the tune of `50,000/- was granted in that case. In the said case also a single knife blow was inflicted in a scuffle causing punctured wound penetrating into the chest cavity resulting in death. The incident in that case had taken place after an altercation and accused acted suddenly at the spur of the moment, without premeditation and without any ill will or enmity. In the present case also, the accused and deceased were friends and the finding of the trial Court is that at the spur of moment Gurjit Singh picked up the scissors and inflicted one blow. Again this Court in Malta Singh's case (Supra), acquitted the person who was alleged to be holding the deceased, whereas the sentence of the person who actually inflicted blow with dang, was reduced to the period already undergone, which was 3 years, 11 months and 24 days in that case. However, the accused-appellant in that case was directed to pay compensation to the tune of `25,000/-.
So, keeping in view ratio of the abovesaid two judgments, the conviction of Gurjit Singh under Section 304 Part II IPC stands Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A. No. S 1555 SB of 2003 -9- affirmed. However, his sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone, which is 6 years, 2 months and 19 days. Gurjit Singh is directed to pay compensation to the tune of `50,000/- to the legal heirs of Mandeep Singh deceased. The said amount shall be deposited within 2 months from today, before the trial Court, failing which the appeal of Gurjit Singh would be deemed to have been dismissed.
With the abovesaid observations, the appeal, as well as, the revision petition stand disposed of.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 21.11.2013 Judge chugh Chugh Banita 2013.12.18 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document