Punjab-Haryana High Court
Si Surjit Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003
Date of Decision: September 06, 2010
SI Surjit Chand and others .......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ankur Mittal, Advocate
for appellants No.2 and 3.
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 12.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court") whereby in case FIR No.67/68 dated 23.7.2000 registered at Police Station Sohana, the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sections 365/506/342/323/324/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
Name of Section Sentence Fine In default accused Surjit Chand 365 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.2,000/- 2 months 342 IPC RI for 6 months 506 IPC RI for one year 324 IPC RI for one year 325 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- one month read with Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -2- Sec. 34 IPC RI 323 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for 6 months Jagdev Singh 365 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.2,000/- 2 months 342 IPC RI for 6 months 506 IPC RI for one year 325 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- one month 324 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for one year 323 read with 34 IPC RI for 6 months Sudesh Kumar 365 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.2,000/- 2 months 342 IPC RI for 6 months 506 IPC RI for one year 325 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- one month 324 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for one year 323 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for 6 months Gurpreet Singh 365 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.2,000/- 2 months @ Kala 342 IPC RI for 6 months 506 IPC RI for one year 325 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.500/- one month 324 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for one year 323 read with Sec.34 IPC RI for 6 months
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -3-
2. The brief facts, as narrated in paras 2 and 3 of the judgment of learned Trial Court, are that:
"Complainant Gurpreet Singh was working as constable in Punjab Police and he was posted in Police Station Sohana and was deputed on temporary duty in Police Post of village Mote Majra and he was residing in the house of Sukhcharan Singh Bajwa retired Superintendent of Police in the area of village Tangori; that on 22.7.2000 at about 9.30 PM complainant had gone to have a dinner at Zimidara Dhaba in the area of village Tangori. When he reached the said Dhaba, some drivers were quarrelling, on which complainant intervened and tried to stop them from quarrelling. In the meantime, one Blue Maruti car having registration No. DL-3CC-7383 came there and then SI Surjit Chand, HC Jagdev Singh and SPO Sudesh Kumar came out of the said car. They caught hold of complainant and took him into the room behind the said Dhaba where complainant was locked. Then the above said three persons removed the clothes of complainant and started interrogating him. In the meantime accused Kala also came there. Accused Kala tied the arms of complainant and then HC Jagdev Singh and SPO Sudesh Kumar started pulling apart his legs; that SI Surjit Chand who was standing in front of the complainant kept on saying that complainant be interrogated properly so that police Naka be got removed from nearby the Dhaba, as a result of which the sale of the Dhaba would increase that accused SI Surjit Chand also stated that because of the Naka, vehicles did Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -4- not stop at their Dhaba; That then SI Surjit Chand caused injury on the right leg of complainant with the help of screw driver and put salt on the wound; that HC Jagdev Singh gave "Dang"
blow on the left arm of complainant; that complainant knew SI Surjit Chand, HC Jagdev Singh and SPO Sudesh Kumar as they belong to the police department; that accused Kala is related to SI Surjit Chand; that all the aforesaid persons were drunk; that then the said four persons lifted the complainant after tying his arms and legs and then put him in the car. SI Surjit Chand proclaimed that the complainant be thrown in Bhakra canal; that when the above said persons started the car to turn towards Banur, HC Rajinder Singh No. 957 and C-Nirmal Singh No. 1665 reached the Dhaba; that on seeing them the complainant raised alarm on which accused threw the complainant out of the car and fled away towards Banur and while going away the accused threatened that in case the matter was reported to the police, then they would kill the complainant; that then HC Rajinder Singh and C-Nirmal Singh untied the arms and legs of the complainant and gave him water to drink and took the complainant to Police Post. They tried to inform about the incident to Police of Police Station Sohana through wireless message but the wireless was out of order; that due to fear they did not go to Police station to report the matter; that on the next morning complainant narrated the entire incident to Sukhcharan Singh Bajwa, retired Supdt. of Police who took the complainant, HC Rajinder Singh and C. Nirmal Singh to Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -5- Superintendent of Police, Mohali. Then Supdt. of Police Mohali called SI Baldev Singh from Police Station Sohana and directed him to register a case against the accused and SI Baldev Singh recorded the statement of complainant. Then complainant was taken to Hospital for his medical examination.
On the basis of the above said statement of complainant, formal FIR was registered in the Police Station by MHC Darshan Singh. Then, police went to the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. Statements of the PWs were also recorded; that on 23.7.2000 accused SI Surjit Chand, SPO Sudesh Kumar, HC Jagdev Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Kala were arrested by the Police from the Zimidara Dhaba of village Tangori; that on the personal search of accused SI Surjit Chand, one .32 bore Revolver was recovered and on unloading the same five live cartridges of .32 bore were also recovered. SI Surjit Chand failed to produce any arms licence regarding possession of said revolver and live cartridges. The said revolver and five live cartridges were taken into possession by the police vide separate memo; that one official carbine with magazine which HC Jagdev Singh was holding in his hand was also taken into possession vide separate memo. Separate FIR under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered against SI Surjit Chand for possession .32 bore Revolver along with five live cartridges without any arms licence. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and on return to police station, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. On Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -6- completion investigation, challan was presented in the court of Illaqa Magistrate, in case having FIR No.67, as well as FIR No.68."
3. The learned Trial Court charge sheeted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 364,342,325,324,323,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, viz., Dr.S.K.Nain, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Mohali as PW1; Dr.Andesh Cheema, Civil Hospital, Mohali as PW2; Constable Mohinder Singh as PW3; Anil as PW4; Sub Inspector Gurpreet Singh as PW5; Karamjit Singh, Patwari Halqa Tangori as PW6; Constable Gurpreet Singh as PW7; Head Constable Rajinder Singh as PW8; Sub Inspector Baldev Singh, Investigating Officer as PW9; ASI Daya Singh as PW10; Head Constable Ramji Dass as PW11; ASI Darshan Singh as PW12; Head Constable Gurcharan Singh as PW13; Sukhcharan Singh Bajwa, Retired S.P. as PW14; Inspector Balwinder Pal, Investigating Officer as PW15; SI Baldev Singh as PW16; Constable Balwinder Singh as PW17; Karnail Singh, Ahlmad in the Court of District Magistrate, Ropar as PW18 and ASI Darshan Singh as PW19.
5. Statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the incriminating material and allegations levelled against them in the prosecution evidence and in defence, they examined Mohan Singh as DW1, Lakhvir Singh as DW2, Charanjit Singh as DW3 and Balbir Singh as DW4.
6. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, the learned Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -7- Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above in the outset.
7. Hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits. However, he has prayed for reduction of sentence so awarded to the accused-appellants by taking leniency. He has informed the Court that Surjit Chand, appellant No.1, has died during the pendency of appeal, as such, his appeal abates.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellants since the offence has been proved.
10. The Hon'ble 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 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"
11. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -8- 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon'ble 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".
12. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case is of the year 2000, i.e., 23.7.2000 and the appellants have faced the mental agony of protracted trial for more than 10 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.
13. Keeping in view the fact that the accused-appellants have faced the agony of trial for more than 10 years and, as stated, are not habitual Criminal Appeal No.1356-SB of 2003 -9- offenders, therefore, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, their conviction stands maintained.
14. The appeal qua Surjit Chand, appellant No.1, who died during pendency of appeal, is ordered to be abated.
15. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the appellants, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine of remaining appellants is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of Rs.1.5 lacs, an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses.
16. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced 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.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
September 06, 2010 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No