Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kala Alias Jai Chand @ Daya Chand vs State Of Haryana on 24 February, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998
Date of decision : 24.02.2010
Kala alias Jai Chand @ Daya Chand
.... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
Kala alias Jai Chand @ Daya Chand has filed the present appeal. He was named as accused in case FIR No.295 dated 1.5.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, under Section 307 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon came to the conclusion that although no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellant but found him guilty and convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PJ made by Tara Chand. In the statement, Tara Chand stated that he was a resident of Khandsa and they were four Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998 -2- brothers. His brother, younger to him, was Rajinder. On 14.04.1995, at about 9.00 PM, Rajinder was lying on a cot in his house and that the accused came there under the influence of liquor. He started giving abuses to his brother Rajinder. Complainant did not react. This infuriated the accused and he gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Rajinder. Kishan son of Ram Mehar, Jat and Satbir son of Maman Pandit were present there. They got admitted injured Rajinder in Sethi Hospital, Gurgaon. After the wounds were stitched, he was brought back to home. The condition of the patient became worst and he was again taken to a hospital at Delhi. He was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi for admission but the complainant got him admitted in Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi. So the complainant was busy in attending the injured for providing treatment. The statement could not be made to police. It can be noticed here that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 14.4.1995. Statement was made by complainant on 20.04.1995 and the FIR was registered on 1.05.1995.
Dr. B.B.L. Sharma, PW-2 had medico legally examined Rajinder on the night of the incident at about 1.20 AM. He found the following injuries on his person:-
"There was stitched wound on left side front of abdomen. It was 10 cm on mid line and 7 cm below costal margin. There were two stitches present. There was pinkish discharge from wound margin. On examination, abdomen was tender. Patient was advised. X-ray abdomen and surgeons opinion."
According to this witness, injury was declared dangerous to life. Regarding the nature of weapon, opinion of the doctor who Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998 -3- stitched the wound was to be taken. PW-5 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sethi on 14.4.1995 had provided first aid to Rajinder. He stated that it was a clean wound, therefore, no definite opinion cannot be given whether the injury could not be caused with the knife or not. Dr. M.P. Arora, PW-7 had performed a surgery. He stated that there was a stab wound. On exploration of internal injury it was found that there was a perforation in the jejunum. Around 500 ml of blood and faecal matter was present in the abdominal cavity. He had opened the abdomen for cleaning and draining. The wound was restitched after procedure was followed. According to this witness, patient was discharged on 22.4.1995.
Having noticed the medical evidence for corroborating of the ocular version, this Court can notice eye-witness account. Prosecution examined complainant Tara Chand as PW-11. This witness stated that he was present in Gatwar where he learnt that accused had caused injury. He took the injured to the hospital. Occurrence was witnessed by Kishan and Satbir. In cross- examination, he stated that he had seen accused passing in front of house raising lalkara. Kishan appeared as PW-9. He stated that nothing was known to him about the occurrence. He was declared hostile. He resiled from his previous statement Ex.PK. Injured Rajinder Singh appeared as PW-10. He gave all details about the occurrence. Mool Chand, PW-1 had prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PA. PW-3 Constable Vijay Pal is attesting witness to recovery memo Ex.PF. He stated that accused got knife Ex.P1 recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement. PW-4 Raj Singh, Inspector had Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998 -4- prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW-6 Parkash Chand, ASI had partly investigated the case. PW-8 Kanwar Lal, ASI proved formal recording of the FIR as Ex.PJ/1. Budh Ram, ASI appeared as PW-13. He proved various facets of investigation.
Prosecution closed its evidence.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. All incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, who denied the same and claimed innocence.
Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate appearing for the appellant has stated that in the present case, occurrence took place on 14.4.1995 at 9.00 PM. The report was made to the police on 20.04.1995 and the FIR was registered on 1.05.1995. According to the counsel, even Rajinder was discharged from the hospital on 22.4.1995. It is further submitted that Tara Chand complainant had stated that he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence and arrived at the spot later. PW-9 Krishan and PW-12 Satbir who were the eye- witness of the occurrence had not supported the prosecution case and resiled from their testimony. Counsel has submitted that in these circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of injured Rajinder Singh PW-10 as other witnesses had not supported him and there is a delay in lodging of the complaint to the police.
Rajinder had suffered a very severe injury in his abdomen. After stitching also, the wound could not heel and it had caused perforation of jejunum. The wound was to be re-opened. 500 ml of blood was removed. Abdomen was cleaned and re-stitched. It is a case of solitary injury and solitary accused. PW-10 is a last person to Crl. Appeal No.707-SB of 1998 -5- falsely implicate anybody. In the present case, complainant party had not widen the net and had not introduced any other person as accused. Rajinder Singh PW-10 is the last person to substitute the accused. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, Sh. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant has stated that occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. Appellant has already suffered a protracted trial of about 15 years. He is in corridors of the Court since then. Therefore, long pendency of the case and protracted trial should be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence is reduced from four years to two and a half year. With these observations, present appeal is disposed of.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 24.02.2010 JUDGE manju