Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab on 28 November, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M)
DECIDED ON : 28.11.2013
Ram Kumar and another
...Appellants
versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
and
CRR NO. 412 OF 2004 (O&M)
Sukhdev Singh
...Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. S. S. Behl, Advocate,
for appellant No.2.
Mr. S. S. Chandumajra, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner in
CRR No. 412 of 2004.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common judgment, I intend to dispose of two cases, one Criminal Appeal No. S-653-SB of 2003 titled as, "Ram Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab" and Crl. Revision No.412 of 2004 titled as, "Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab and others", as both the cases have arisen out of the Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -2- same incident and judgment. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CRA No. S-653-SB of 2003.
Ram Kumar and Ram Lubhaya have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2003 passed by Shri Surjit Singh, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur, vide which they have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Ram Kumar U/s 307 IPC RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.
U/S 342/34 IPC RI for six months
U/S 325/34 IPC RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. U/S 27 of Arms Act RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. Ram Lubhaya U/S 307/34 IPC RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.
U/S 342/34 IPC RI for six months. U/S 325/34 IPC RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days.
U/S 323/34 IPC RI for six months. U/S 29-B of Arms RI for 1 year. Act
However all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief resume of the case of prosecution is that Hardev Singh (injured/complainant) made statement to the effect that on 05.02.1999 at about 6.30 PM, he was sitting at house when Avtar Singh came to him and told him that Gopal Singh has been abducted by Ram Kumar and Ram Lubhaya, when he was alighting from the bus and he has been beaten by them in front Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -3- of their house and thereafter, they dragged Gopal Singh in their house. Upon this, complainant Hardev Singh along with Sukhdev Singh-father of Gopal Singh, Anil Kumar, Pardip Kumar and some neighbourers went to the house of Ram Lubhaya and while standing outside, they called Gopal Singh in loud voice. At that time the gate of house of Ram Lubhaya was open. Gopal Singh did not respond to their calls. Ram Kumar and Ram Lubhaya started abusing the complainant party and stated that they would teach them a lesson for beating their brother Ram Kishore. At this, Ram Kumar accused fired two shots from 12 bore gun at the complainant party with an intention to kill them and the pellets hit the right shoulder of complainant and thighs of Anil Kumar and knee of Pardip Kumar. In the meantime, Gopal Singh came running out of the house of accused. The complainant and other injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur by Raghbir Singh and Balbir Singh in a private bus driven by Binder Singh.
Complainant, Anil Kumar and Pardip Kumar were admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur whereas Gopal Singh was taken to Military Hospital, Jalandhar as he was employed as Sepoy in the military. The gun with which Ram Kumar fired, was a licenced gun of Ram Lubhaya. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that 5-6 months earlier to the present occurrence, there was an altercation between Gopal Singh and Ram Kishore in which Ram Kishore was beaten by Gopal Singh and on that account, the accused/appellants bore grudge against Gopal Singh Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -4- and others.
During investigation the gun was recovered from Ram Kumar and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused/appellants was presented in Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of same were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Charge under Sections 307/342/325/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27-A and 29-B of the Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined injured/complainant Hardev Singh as PW-1, Anil Kumar as PW-2, Pardip Kumar as PW-3, Dr.Gurbachan Singh as PW-4, Gopal Singh as PW-5, Prem Nath as PW-6, Dr.J.S.Purewal as PW-7, Sudarshan Kumar as PW-8, Dr.Surinder Ganggar as PW-9, HC Gurmeet Singh as PW-10, Inspector Manjit Singh as PW-11, ASI Prem Singh as PW-12, ASI Resham Singh as PW-13, Shanti Nath as PW-14, Dr. Lt.Col. Kasturi Tiwari as PW-15, Dr. Vinay Kumar as PW-16 and closed the evidence.
The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they pleaded innocence and false implication.
The accused were called upon to lead defence evidence and they examined Ravinder Singh as DW-1, Neelam Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -5- Kumari as DW-2, Dev Raj as DW-3 and closed the evience.
The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found both the accused guilty under Sections 307/342/323/325 IPC. Accused Ram Kumar was also held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereas accused Ram Lubhaya was also found guilty under Section 29-B of the Arms Act and were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine, as narrated above.
Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2003, the accused/appellants have preferred the present appeal, whereas Sukhdev Singh has preferred revision petition praying for enhancement of sentence and for grant of compensation.
On the last date of hearing, report from the CJM was received that Ram Kumar-the main accused has died. It was accompanied with death certificate.
Notice was given to learned State counsel to verify regarding the factum of death of Ram Kumar.
Learned counsel for the parties have stated at the bar that Ram Kumar has died. So, the present appeal qua Ram Kumar -appellant No.1 stands dismissed as having been abated.
Now the appeal qua Ram Lubhaya-appellant No.2 survives.
Sukhdev Singh has also filed revision for enhancement of sentence and for grant of compensation.
Bhatia Shalini2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -6-
Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court but has submitted that as per custody certificate, the main accused Ram Kumar has already undergone incarceration for a period of 06 years 03 days out of the substantive sentence of 07 years. The actual firing has been attributed to said Ram Kumar. It is further submitted that the only attribution to appellant No.2-Ram Lubhaya is that he has taken Gopal inside the house and he has given his gun to Ram Kumar. It is further submitted that the factum of giving gun to Ram Kumar by Ram Lubhaya (present appellant) is not mentioned in the FIR. He has further contended that the main injured in the present case is Hardev Singh and the matter has been compromised with him. Affidavit of Hardev Singh has also been placed on file. It is further contended that the matter relates to the year 1999 i.e more than 14 years ago. Since then the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial. So, prayer has been made for taking lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant carries weight. The matter has been compromised with the main injured Hardev Singh. The appellant Ram Lubhaya has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year 05 months 09 days including remission of 01 year and 16 days. As per the conviction slip, he is not the previous convict nor facing trial in any other case. He has faced the agony of protracted trial Bhatia Shalini 2013.12.19 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA NO.S-653-SB OF 2003(O&M) -7- for the last more than 14 years. The only attribution to the appellant No.2 in the FIR is that he has taken Gopal inside the house, but the actual firing has been attributed to Ram Kumar- appellant No.1, who has since expired. So, considering whole of the circumstances, the sentence of appellant No.2-Ram Lubhaya stands reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine under Section 307 IPC stands enhanced to Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months. The said amount be paid within two months.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
So far as the revision petition is concerned, the same has been filed by Sukhdev Singh who is neither the injured nor complainant in the present case. Otherwise also, this Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence by invoking the provisions of revision. In these circumstances, the revision petition stands dismissed.
NOVEMBER 28, 2013 (K. C. PURI)
shalini JUDGE
Bhatia Shalini
2013.12.19 16:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh