Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 December, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002
Date of Decision : December 07, 2010
Parvinder Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral)
Vide impugned judgment and order dated March 13, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows :-
Parvinder Singh Offence Sentence of Sentence of Imprisonment in imprisonment fine default of payment of fine Under Section Rigorous Rs.1,000/- Rigorous 307 IPC imprisonment imprisonment for for 5 years. 3 months.
Under Section Rigorous Rs.500/- Rigorous
326 IPC imprisonment imprisonment for
for 3 years. 1 month.
Under Section Rigorous Rs.100/- Rigorous
452 IPC imprisonment imprisonment for
for 1 year. 15 days.
Under Section Rigorous - -
324 IPC imprisonment
for 6 months.
Under Section Rigorous - -
324 read with imprisonment
Section 34 IPC for 4 months.
Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -2-
Harminder Singh
Offence Sentence of Sentence Imprisonment
imprisonment of fine in default of
payment of
fine
Under Section 307 Rigorous Rs.500/- Rigorous
read with Section imprisonment imprisonment
34 IPC for 4 years. for 1 month.
Under Section 326 Rigorous Rs.200/- Rigorous
read with Section imprisonment imprisonment
34 IPC for 2 years. for 1 month.
Under Section 452 Rigorous Rs.100/- Rigorous
IPC imprisonment imprisonment
for 1 year. for 15 days.
Under Section 324 Rigorous - -
IPC imprisonment
for 6 months.
Under Section 324 Rigorous - -
read with Section imprisonment
34 IPC for 4 months.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution, the appellants, while armed with a kirpan each, had attacked complainant Rajni, her mother Soma Devi and cousin Nanhe Lal on 15.10.1997 at about 10.30 A.M. in the house belonging to Soma Devi in Ward No.2, Kurali. Later on, statement Ex.PA of complainant Rajni was recorded by the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 68 dated 15.10.1997 under Sections 452, 324, 34 IPC was registered against the appellants at Police Station, Kurali.
In her statement Ex.PA, complainant Rajni had stated that Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -3- she was resident of Ambala Cantt. and had come to the house of her parents. On 15.10.1997, her cousin Nanhe Lal was also present there. At about 10.30 A.M., one Sikh boy, namely, Parvinder Singh @ Pammi, accompanied by a clean shaven boy, whose name she did not know but could identify him if brought before her, came inside her house. Both of them were carrying kirpans in their hands. Parvinder Singh gave a kirpan blow to her hitting on her right ear and right side of the neck. The clean shaven person gave a kirpan blow to Soma Devi, hitting on her head. Parvinder Singh also gave a kirpan blow to Soma Devi hitting on the left side of her chest. The complainant raised an alarm which attracted her cousin Nanhe Lal to the spot, who tried to rescue her and her mother. Parvinder Singh gave a kirpan blow on the right arm of Nanhe Lal. The clean shaven person gave kirpan blow on fingers of the right hand of Rajni. After causing injuries, both the accused fled from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. The cause of the occurrence was that Satwinder Kaur, sister of Parvinder Singh, had an affair with complainant's brother Rakesh Kumar. In order to take revenge, Parvinder Singh, alongwith his companion, had entered the house of the complainant while armed with kirpans and caused injuries. After the occurrence, Rajesh Kumar removed the three injured to Civil Hospital, Kurali, where they were admitted by the doctor but later on referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh.
During investigation of the case, the police obtained an Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -4- opinion from the medical authorities that the injury in the chest area of Soma Devi was grievous in nature and had also endangered her life. Accordingly, offences under Sections 307 and 450 IPC were added to the heading of the FIR. Both the appellants were arrested on 22.10.1997 in connection with FIR No.71/1997 under Section 302 IPC of Police Station, Kurali. They were arrested in the present case and interrogated. Parvinder Singh suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same got recovered kirpan Ex.P1. Scaled site plan Ex.PL was got prepared from Darshan Singh, Draftsman regarding the place of occurrence.
After completion of investigation and presentation of the challan, followed by the commitment of the case, the appellants were charged for offences under Sections 450, 307/326/324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Rajni Rani, PW2 Soma Devi, PW3 Dr. Chetan Sharma, PW4 ASI Harsimran Singh, PW5 ASI Prem Chand, PW6 Darshan Singh, Draftsman, PW7 Dr. Madhu Sudan, PW8 Dr. Rana Sandeep Singh and PW9 Dr. Rajesh Chhabra.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded false implication on account of enmity. According to them, they were not present at the Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -5- place of occurrence nor they knew the injured.
The trial Court believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellants made a valiant attempt to convince the Court about the innocence of the appellants. However on going through the statements of PW1 Rajni Rani and PW2 Soma Devi, besides the medical evidence brought on the record, I am of the view that it were the appellants who had caused injuries to the aforementioned two witnesses as well as Nanhe Lal.
Now comes the question about the nature of the offence. As per medico-legal case summaries Exs. PM and PN in respect of Nanhe Lal and Rajni Rani, respectively, the injuries on their person were simple in nature. However, on the person of Soma Devi, the doctor had found an injury on her head and a penetrating injury on her chest. This was so stated in the medico-legal case summary Ex.PO prepared by Dr.Pankaj. Against the coloumn meant for describing the nature of injury, it was mentioned that the injury was grievous. On 13.1.1998, in response to a request made by SHO, Police Station, Kurali to know as to whether the grievous injury found on the person of Soma Devi was dangerous to her life or not, Dr. Pankaj gave his opinion Ex.PP that as Soma Devi was admitted on 15.10.1997 with severe shock and penetrating chest injury which had endangered her life and, therefore, it Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -6- was a case of grievous hurt.
For reasons best known to the prosecution, Dr. Pankaj was not examined as its witness. Instead, the prosecution asked Dr. Rana Sandeep Singh to step into the witness box as PW8 to prove the medico- legal case summary Ex.PO and the opinion Ex.PP given by Dr. Pankaj. There is no denial of the fact that on the basis of aforementioned case summary Ex.PO, Dr. Pankaj had given an opinion Ex. PP that the injuries on the person of Soma Devi were grievous in nature. In such a situation, only he could have proved those documents on record. In case it had been established that the attendance of Dr. Pankaj could not be procured without an amount of delay or expense or he could not be found or he had become incapable of giving evidence, as required by Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution would have been justified in producing PW8 Dr. Rana Sandeep Singh to prove the aforementioned documents. As Dr.Pankaj had not stepped into the witness-box, the defence was handicapped in not being able to ask him questions about the nature of injuries which he had found on the person of Soma Devi.
It may also be mentioned here that after receiving the injuries on 15.10.1997 at about 10.30 A.M., Soma Devi was declared fit on the same very evening. In fact, such an opinion was obtained by the police before recording the statement of complainant Rajni Rani. After Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -7- statement Ex.PA of Rajni Rani was recorded, the police also recorded the version of the occurrence as given by Soma Devi in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After a lapse of about three months from the day when she was medico-legally examined, the police sought the opinion from Dr. Pankaj to find out as to whether the grievous injury found on the person of Soma Devi was dangerous to her life or not. Even at that stage, the doctor did not declare the injury to be dangerous to life and only stated that it had endangered her life. However, as mentioned above, neither medico-legal case summary Ex.PO nor opinion Ex.PP could be read in evidence on account of non-production of Dr. Pankaj by the prosecution. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 307/326/34 IPC cannot be sustained. Instead, they are required to be convicted only under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries on the person of Soma Devi.
The appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years. Both of them were in their early twenties at the time of occurrence. As per the custody certificates produced by the learned State counsel today in the Court, Parvinder Singh appellant has already undergone an actual sentence of 6 months and 13 days whereas in the case of Harminder Singh appellant, the said period is 7 months and 13 days. The offences for which the appellants have to be now punished are punishable with maximum imprisonment for seven years.
Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -8-
Learned counsel representing the appellants has informed the Court that both the appellants have already been acquitted of the charges against them in FIR No.71 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station, Kurali. No other criminal case is pending against them nor they stand convicted in any other case.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that instead of sending the appellants behind the bars to undergo their sentences of imprisonment, they can be granted the benefit of probation. At the same time, they can be asked to pay adequate amount of compensation to the three injured, besides paying costs of proceedings.
Resultantly, the conviction of Parvinder Singh appellant under Section 307 IPC and of Harminder Singh appellant under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is altered to one under Section 324 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, respectively. Similarly, the conviction of Parvinder Singh appellant under Section 326 IPC and of Harminder Singh appellant under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC is altered to one under Section 324 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, respectively. The conviction of both the appellants for the offences under Sections 452/324/34 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, is upheld. Instead of requiring the appellants to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine, the Court directs their release under Criminal Appeal S-618-SB of 2002 -9- Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount for a period of two years, undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the said period and to receive sentence as and when called upon to do so. While furnishing bonds, each of the appellants shall deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- which shall, thereafter, be disbursed to the three injured as compensation in equal shares. Each one of them shall also pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs of proceedings. The appellants shall comply with the aforementioned directions within a period of two months from today.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
December 07, 2010 JUDGE
satish