Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmanjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 February, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1039-SB-2001
Date of decision: 15.02.2011
Sukhmanjit Singh and others
...... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Farid Singh Virk, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Sukhmanjit Singh @ Sukhi, Surinder Singh and Bhagwan Dass, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.7.2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 20.10.1999, arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 26.8.1999, registered under Sections 307/326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Payal.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC and sentenced as under:
1. Sukhmanjit Singh under Section 307 IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -2-
Under Sections 307/34 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
Under Sections 326/34 IPC To undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
Under Sections 324/34 IPC RI for one year.
Under Section 326 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 years.
2. Surinder Singh under Sections 307/34 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
Under Section 307 IPC To undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.
Under Sections 326/34 IPC To undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -3- undergo RI for two months.
Under Section 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for one year.
Under Section 326/34 IPC To undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
3. Bhagwan Dass under Sections 307/34 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
Under Section 307/34 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 300/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
Under Sections 326 IPC To undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.
Under Section 324 IPC To undergo RI for two years.
Under Section 326/34 IPC To undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -4-
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gurmit Singh S/o Jagir Singh, was running a shop near Gurdwara Rara Sahib under the name and style of M/s Deol Medical. Shop of Titu Walia was adjoining the shop of Gurmit Singh. Shop of Amandeep Singh, was also near the shop of Titu Walia. On 25.8.1999 at about 7.00 p.m. Sukhmanjit Singh, had gone to the shop of Amandeep Singh and there was some altercation because Amandeep Singh, was to recover ` 800/- from Sukhmanjit Singh, on account of sale of cassettes. Sukhmanjit Singh, was also selling cassettes near Gurdwara Rara Sahib. Gurmit Singh and Titu Waila, had intervened and separated Sukmanjit Singh and Amandeep Singh. After 10-15 minutes Sukhmanjit Singh, armed with a knife, Bhagwan Dass father and Surinder Singh younger brother armed with household knives came there and started abusing Titu Walia and Amandeep Singh. Amandeep Singh, requested the accused not to abuse, then Sukhmanjit Singh, accused had caught hold Amandeep Singh. Sukhmanjit Singh, gave a knife blow hitting on the chest of Amandeep Singh. Surinder Singh, gave another blow on his back. Gurmit Singh and Titu Walia, tried to rescue Amandeep Singh, then Bhagwan Singh, took out 'Chhuri' from his Gatra and gave blow hitting Titu Walia on the left side clavicle. Sukhmanjit Singh, gave a blow with small kirpan to Titu Walia. Bhagwan Dass, gave a 'chhuri' blow to the complainant Gurmit Singh on left arm. On hearing raula, Kuldip Singh and Avtar Singh came at the spot. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot. Vehicle was arranged and injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Payal, where they were medico-legally examined. During that incident accused party had also received minor injuries at CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -5- the hands of the complainant party. Keeping in view the serious condition of Amandeep Singh, he was referred to DMC, Hospital, Ludhiana. On 26.8.1999, SI Swaran Dass, received MLRs of Titu Walia and Gurmit Singh, from Civil Hospital, Payal. On receipt of MLRs, Investigating Officer, had gone to Civil Hospital, Payal. Applications Ex. PK and Ex. PL were moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured namely Titu Walia and Gurmit Singh, were fit to make statements or not respectively. Titu Walia was declared unfit to make statement but Gurmit Singh, was declared fit to make statement. Statement of Gurmit Singh, Ex. PG, was recorded. After making endorsement Ex. PG/1, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PG/2, was recorded.
Investigating Officer, had gone to the spot and after inspecting the same rough site plan, was prepared with its correct marginal notes.
On 27.8.1999, Investigating Officer, had gone to Civil Hospital, Payal. Application ex. PC was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured Titu Walia was fit to make statement or not. Injured was declared fit to make statement. Then statement of Titu Walia was recorded. Blood stained shirt of Titu Walia was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses.
On 30.8.1999, accused were produced before the police while present near bus stand Ghudani Kalan. Bhagwan Dass and Surinder Singh, had produced the weapons and the same were taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station case property was deposited with the incharge of CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -6- the malkhana.
On 30.8.1999, Investigating Officer, was present near Main Chowk in connection with patrol duty where Amarjit Singh, Sarpanch, produced Sukhmanjit Singh, with knife which was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses.
On 1.9.1999, Investigating officer, had gone to DMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where Amandeep Singh, produced his blood stained shirt and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Initially, case was registered under Sections 326/324 IPC but after receipt of injury report of Amandeep Singh, offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was added. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Dr. S.P. Singh, stated that on 25.8.1999 at about 8.45 p.m. he had medico-legally examined Titu Walia and found following injuries on his person:
"1. Incised wound 1¼ cm x ½ cm which was muscle deal with fresh bleeding present, 1.5 cm above the left clavicle and 6 cm from the acromion process. Advised X-ray.
2. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm which was muscle deal with fresh bleeding present on the CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -7- back of chest on left side which was 22 cm from the acromion process and 9 cm from the mid line of back, advised X-ray."
On the same day at about 9.00 p.m. he had also medico- legally examined Gurmit Singh and found following injury on his person:
"1. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 2 cm with fresh bleeding present on the back of left arm. It was 11.5 cm from the elbow joint."
As per opinion Ex. PA/2 injury No.2 on the person of Titu Walia, was declared grievous in nature.
He further stated that on 31.8.1999, Sukhmanjit Singh and Bhagwan Dass, were also medico-legally examined. Injuries were noticed on their person.
PW-2 Dr. Sameer Khanna, stated that on 25.8.1999, he had medico-legally examined Amandeep Singh and found following injuries on his person:
"1. 1 x 2 cm clear cut wound left side sternum 5 cm below sternal notch.
2. 1 x 0.5 cm, clear cut wound middle of right scapular 5 cm from posterial axillary line."
As per X-ray report injuries were declared dangerous to life.
PW-3 Balwinder Singh, Patwari, prepared scaled site plan Ex. PH, with its correct marginal notes.
PW-4 Gurmit Singh, is the injured. He has reiterated his stand before the police.
PW-5 Amandeep Singh, is the second injured. He has CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -8- supported the prosecution version.
PW-6 SI Swaran Dass, is the Investigating Officer. PW-7 Titu Walia, is the third injured. He has also supported the versions of Amandeep Singh and Gurmit Singh injured by saying that accused fully armed came and caused injuries to them.
PW-8 Dr. Sudhir Sethi, had X-rayed injuries on the person of Titu Walia.
PW-9 Dr. Prem Pal Gill, stated that injury No.2 on the person of Titu Walia, was found grievous in nature.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that injuries were not caused to the complainant party. In fact there was a dispute regarding business with the complainant party and to grab money from them false case was got registered against them.
In defence, DW-1 Daljit Singh, appeared and stated that parties are known to him. Parties were carrying on their business near Gurdawara Rara Sahib.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on file, appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -9-
After arguing for sometime when learned defence counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then submitted that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Sukhmanjit Singh and Surinder Singh, are the sons of Bhagwan Dass-appellant. There was minor dispute regarding business. At the time of occurrence, Bhagwan Dass was 48 years old, Sukhmanjit Singh, was 22 years old whereas Surinder Singh was 18-19 years old. They are the first offenders and belong to poor family. Sukhmanjit Singh, has already undergone 2 years, 1 month and 20 days, Surinder Singh has already undergone 1 year, 5 months and 20 days whereas Bhagwan Dass, has already undergone 9 months and 6 days out of the actual sentence. Requested to take lenient view.
Learned State counsel argued that appellants were armed with sharp edged weapons and caused injuries to Amandeep Singh, Titu Walia and Gurmit Singh. Injuries noticed on the person of Amandeep Singh, were dangerous to life. According to defence version appellants also received injuries but no explanation where they received injuries and who were the assailants. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellants has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and only request to take lenient view but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence on file as to whether occurrence has taken place as per prosecution story or not?
All the injured appeared in Court and stated that appellants CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -10- fully armed came and caused injuries to them. No question was put to the injured that they had attacked the appellant party and in defence appellants had caused injuries. Doctor stated that two injuries were noticed on the person of Titu Walia. One injury was noticed on the person of Gurmit Singh. Two injuries were noticed person of Amandeep Singh. One injury i.e. injury No.2 on the person of Titu Walia, was declared grievous in nature. Injuries on the person of Amandeep Singh, was declared dangerous to life. Doctor also stated that Sukhmanjit Singh and Bhagwan Dass, were also medico-legally examined. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries were self-suffered or self-inflicted.
Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then denied all the allegations of the prosecution. No defence version that in defence injuries were caused to the complainant party. As per documentary proof, injuries were also noticed on the person of Suhkmanjit Singh and Bhagwan Dass but no question when they had received injuries and who were the assailants. Appellants and the complainant party were carrying on business near Gurdwara Rara Sahib. Dispute was regarding payment. While causing injuries appellant party also received minor injuries. Occurrence was during the day time near Gurdwara Rara Sahib. Injuries cannot be self-suffered or self-inflicted. If they had no dispute with the appellants then there was no idea to name the appellants by leaving the real culprits. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Judgment of the trial Court is upheld on the point of conviction.
In 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 662 "Rajender Singh Vs. CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -11- State of Haryana", conviction was under Section 307 IPC. Occurrence was 10 years old. Sentence of 7 years was reduced to 3 years, with direction to the accused to pay ` 40,000/- as compensation.
In 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 600 "Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab", conviction was under Sections 307/149 IPC and accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of ` 2000/-. Incident was 17 years old. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (6 ½ months). Amount of fine was enhanced to ` 20,000/-.
Occurrence is dated 25.8.1999, at that time Bhagwan Dass was 48 years old, Sukhmanjit Singh, was 22 years old whereas Surinder Singh was 18-19 years old. They are the first offenders and belong to poor family. They had small shops near Gurdawara Rara Sahib. After the present occurrence there is no dispute amongst the parties. Complainant party was also carrying on business near Gurdawara Rara Sahib. Sukhmanjit Singh, has already undergone 2 years, 1 month and 20 days, Surinder Singh has already undergone 1 year, 5 months and 20 days whereas Bhagwan Dass, has already undergone 9 months and 6 days out of the actual sentence. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken otherwise appellants would become hardcore criminals if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and antecedents of the appellants, I take lenient view and direct the appellants to undergo imprisonment already undergone (in case of Sukhmanjit Singh, 2 years, 1 month and 20 days, in case of Surinder Singh 1 year, 5 months and 20 days and in case of Bhagwan Dass, 9 months and 6 days out of the CRA-S-1039-SB-2001 -12- actual sentence). Appellants are further directed to deposit ` 10,000/- each more as fine within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured as compensation in equal shares. In case, fine is not deposited during the stipulated period then this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
With the above mentioned modification, the instant appeal is disposed of.
February 15, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE