Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999
.....
Date of decision:18.3.2013
Parminder Singh and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Revision No.272 of 1999
.....
Narpinder Singh
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
....
(3) Criminal Appeal No.S-514-SB of 1999
.....
State of Punjab
...Appellant
v.
Umrao Singh and others
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999.
Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc.
[2]
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999; in
Cr. Revision No.272 of 1999 and for the appellants in Cr.
Appeal No.S-514-SB of 1999.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Revision
No.272 of 1999.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This judgment will dispose of above two criminal appeals and one criminal revision i.e. Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999 filed by Parminder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Umrao Singh and Gurdev Singh; Criminal Revision No.272 of 1999 filed by Narpinder Singh and Criminal Appeal No.S-514-SB of 1999 filed by State of Punjab as these arise out of the same judgment and order dated 21.1.1999/23.1.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
The above criminal appeals and criminal revision have been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.1.1999/23.1.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby accused-Parminder Singh (appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999) has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') for attempting to murder Nirmal Singh, Balbir Singh and Avtar Singh as well as for the offence under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Accused, namely, Sukhwinder Singh, Umrao Singh and Gurdev Singh (appellants No.2 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999) have been held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for causing injuries to Nirmal Singh, Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Dalip Kaur. Appellant No.1-Parminder Singh Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [3] has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellants No.2 to 4 Sukhwinder Singh, Umrao Singh and Gurdev Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. However, all sentences of Parminder Singh have been ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused- appellants Parminder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Umrao Singh and Gurdev Singh, are residents of Mohalla Jasria, Sirhind and a challan against them had been presented for the offences under Sections 307, 323 IPC read with Sections 27 and 29 of the Arms Act for causing injuries with 12 bore Single Barrel Gun as well as with brickbats to Nirmal Singh, Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Dalip Kaur on 24.5.1992 at about 9.00 a.m. A separate challan for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms act was filed against accused-appellant Parminder Singh which was also disposed of by the same judgment by the trial Court.
Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [4] As per prosecution case, there was a dispute between the parties about the common land of the Mohalla. In the year 1983, Umrao Singh being Secretary and Gurdev Singh alleging himself to be the President of the Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Sirhind filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Labh Singh, father of Narpinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Nirmal Singh not to dispossess the Gurdwara Singh Sabha from the said premises and the matter was got compromised and it was decided that ownership and possession of the land would remain with Gurdwara and Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar would manage this property. As the price of the land had gone up, therefore, the accused did not want to part with the said land and they did not want that the said land should vest in the Gurdwara.
An electric pole was also standing in the site in dispute which the accused party wanted to remove. On 24.5.1992 at about 9.00 a.m., when Narpinder Singh along with his brothers Nirmal Singh and Balbir Singh and five/six other persons, after showing the said pole, standing in the site in dispute, was returning to his house and when they reached in the street, they saw Umrao Singh and his sons, namely, Sukhwinder Singh and Parminder Singh and one of the persons, namely, Gurdev Singh standing in the street. As they did not want that the land should now be given to the Gurdwara, therefore, they initiated the quarrel. In the meantime, Parminder Singh brought a 12 bore Single Barrel Gun from his house and started saying that they would teach them a lesson for giving the land to the Gurdwara and fired a shot at them which hit the right arm and right temple of Nirmal Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [5] Singh. Then they started running towards their houses. However, Umrao Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh started throwing brickbats at them. Umrao Singh threw brickbats towards Nirmal Singh which hit him on his right leg. Gurdev Singh threw brickbat which hit on the right thigh of Balbir Singh. Thereafter, while going on the roof, Parminder Singh fired a shot upon the right arm of Balbir Singh and he also fired another shot which hit Avtar Singh son of Narpinder Singh. Sukhwinder Singh raised `Lalkara' that they should not go unhurt. Then he threw a brickbat which hit Dalip Kaur on her leg. All the injured and complainant Narpinder Singh raised the noise "Being killed - Being killed". Then all the accused ran away and bolted the door of their house from inside. All the injured were removed to hospital by Narpinder Singh. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station by the doctor, on which ASI Surjit Singh reached the hospital and found that all the injured were unfit to make the statements, therefore, he recorded the statement Ex.PW.5/A of Narpinder Singh. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PW.7/B was registered by ASI Kamal Dev.
Then, ASI Surjit Singh, Investigating Officer reached the spot and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW.7/C. He also recovered three empty cartridges and a 12 Bore gun which were taken into Police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW.7/D. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. All the injured remained unconscious w.e.f. 25.5.1992 to 31.5.1992, therefore, their statements were recorded thereafter. On 10.6.1992, accused Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [6] Umrao Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were arrested. On that day, the Investigating Officer also took into possession the licence of the gun. Accused-appellant Parminder Singh was interrogated. On the basis of disclosure statement, he got recovered 12 bore gun along with two live cartridges which were taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellant Parminder Singh, framed charge for the offence under Sections 307 IPC, whereas charge was framed against accused-appellants Sukhwinder Singh, Umrao Singh and Gurdev Singh for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge was also framed against accused-appellants Umrao Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh for the offence under Section 323 IPC and charge was also framed against appellant Parminder Singh for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Again accused-appellant Parminder Singh was charged for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and against Umrao Singh for the offence under Section 29 of the Arms Act. A separate charge for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against appellant Parminder Singh. The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 HC Sewa Singh, who mainly deposed regarding taking into Police possession licence Ex.P.1/A. PW-2 Baldev Singh mainly deposed regarding the licence Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [7] renewed upto 27.3.1993. PW-3 Anand Mohan Singh, Additional Ahlmad in the Court of JMIC, Fatehgarh Sahib proved the copy of the plaint, written statement, joint statement of the parties, statement of the counsel and certified copy of the order of the Court passed in the civil suit. PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar Sethi mainly deposed that on 24.5.1992 at about 9.45 a.m., he medico-legally examined Balbir Singh son of Labh Singh injured and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. An entrance wound 4 mm x 5 mm on front of middle of right forearm. X-ray was advised.
2. Bruise 20 cm x 5.0 cm on front of right thigh. X-ray was advised. Injury was red in colour."
The injuries were kept under observation. Probable duration of injuries was about 1 to 2 hours. Injury No.1 was the result of fire arm whereas injury No.2 was the result of blunt weapon.
On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Avtar Singh son of Narpinder Singh aged 12 years at about 9.55 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. A lacerated wound 3 mm x 3 mm on middle of forehead inverted edges. Advised X-ray.
2. A lacerated wound 1.0 cm x 0.4 cm on left side of forehead. Advised X-ray.
3. An abrasion 1.0 cm x 0.2 cm on face in front of left ear."
The doctor kept injuries No.1 and 2 under observation. He gave the duration of these injuries as 1 to 2 hours and the kind of weapon used for Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [8] injuries No.1 and 2 was given as fire arm and for injury No.3 was given as blunt weapon.
On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Nirmal Singh son of Labh Singh, aged 45 years at 10.05 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. A lacerated wound 4 mm x 5 mm on front of middle of right forearm. Advised x-ray.
2. Bruise 1 cm x 1 cm on inner side of middle of right forearm, red in colour (Advised X-ray) 4 inch away from injury No.1.
3. A lacerated wound 4 mm x 4 mm on right side of head 2"
away from right ear. Advised X-ray.
4. An abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on front of middle of right leg." As per doctor, he declared injury No.4 as simple. He also opined that injuries No.1 to 3 on the person of the injured were the result of fire arm and injury No.4 was the result of blunt weapon.
On the same day, the doctor medico-legally examined Dalip Kaur injured at 10.25 a.m. and found the following injury:-
"1. A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on front of middle of right leg. She complained of pain and tenderness. Advised X-ray."
The injury was caused by blunt weapon.
PW-5 Narpinder Singh-complainant deposed as per prosecution version. PW-6 Balbir Singh injured also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-7 ASI Surjit Singh is the Investigating Officer and he deposed regarding the investigation of this case. The Public Prosecutor closed the Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [9] prosecution evidence.
In the connected challan filed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the prosecution examined PW-1 Jarnail Singh, PW-2 Nazar Singh, PW-3 ASI Surjit Singh, PW-4 Inspector Harbans Singh and PW-5 HC Mohan Singh and closed its evidence.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. It is also stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution story is false. The complainant party was aggressor party. Actually the occurrence took place in the house of the accused. The complainant party had not explained injuries on the persons of Inder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. The defence version had also been given in the statements. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The injuries on the person of the accused have not been explained. The injuries are fabricated. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the complainant-party was aggressor party. The injuries have been fabricated and the appellants have been falsely implicated. He argued that the appeal of the appellants be Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [10] accepted and the appellants be acquitted. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants argued that more than 21 years have passed after the occurrence. He prayed for lenient view and requested for reduction of sentence and releasing Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh on probation.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that all the accused had taken active participation in the commission of offence and all of them including Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh be also convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, I find that there is only three hours delay in recording the FIR. The injured PWs were admitted by Narpinder Singh in the hospital and the doctor gave the opinion that they were unfit to make the statement. When ASI Surjit Singh reached the hospital, Narpinder Singh-complainant was present and his statement was recorded. It is now settled law that delay in recording the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. Only in the case of delay, the statements of the PWs are to be scrutinized more cautiously and carefully by the Court. I have gone through the evidence on record carefully and cautiously. The delay in the present case has been duly explained and there is no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. The injured were firstly removed to the hospital and then the doctor sent `Ruqa' to the Police Station from where ASI Surjit Singh came and reached the hospital and took the opinion of the doctor Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [11] whether the injured were in a fit condition to make the statements or not. Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be held that there is unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. Rather, the FIR is prompt one.
Further from the evidence on record, I find that the PWs have duly proved the motive regarding the occurrence. There was a dispute regarding the land which was settled in the Court. The matter was compromised and the land in question was handed over to Gurdwara Singh Sabha, the management of which was run by SGPC, Amritsar. The documents have been placed on the record regarding the same. A perusal of the evidence shows that the occurrence took place regarding the land of Gurdwara Singh Sabha. There were strained relations between the parties. Litigation was also going on between them, though later on it was compromised. Therefore, there is motive for the occurrence.
Otherwise also, it is a case of direct evidence and motive in the case of direct evidence looses significance. The occurrence of the present case as per PWs had taken place in the street. Site plan was prepared on the same day, which also shows that the occurrence had taken place in the street. Blood stained earth was also lifted and the empties were also taken into Police possession. The defence version that the occurrence took place in the house of the accused cannot be believed. No DWs have been examined to prove the defence version and to prove that the occurrence took place as per defence version in the house of the accused. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it cannot be held that the complainant party was aggressor party.
Otherwise also, minor injuries were received by the accused Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [12] persons and it looks improbable that seven persons with `Lathis' and `Kirpans' while entering into the house would cause these injuries. The defence version that Parminder Singh fired to save the property and the persons from receiving injuries, also cannot be believed. Three of the injured received bullet injuries. These injuries, in no way, can be held as self-suffered and fabricated. Otherwise also, the injured were shifted immediately to the hospital and when the Investigating Officer went there, they were found unfit to make the statements. From the evidence on record, the occurrence took place all of a sudden. There was no meeting of minds before the occurrence. There was no pre-planning. The accused were not armed with deadly weapons. Rather, as per evidence, Parminder Singh brought the gun from the house. All these facts show that Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC as they only caused injuries by giving brickbat blows. Parminder Singh had caused injuries by firing upon the complainant party and injuring three of the persons. Therefore, he has been correctly held guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC by the learned trial Court. As regards appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh, as they were not armed with weapons and only brickbat blows had been given by them and the injuries were simple, as no X-ray report or Radiologist etc. had been examined, therefore, they have been correctly held guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that they have common intention with Parminder Singh. When the quarrel started, appellant Parminder Singh was also not armed with the gun. There Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [13] is nothing in the evidence that appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh raised `Lalkaras' and asked Parmidner Singh to bring the gun or fire upon the complainant-party. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh have been rightly acquitted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is correct and as per law. The judgment cannot be held as perverse or against the evidence on record or against the law.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I find no merit in Criminal Appeal No.S-514-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.272 of 1999 and the same are dismissed.
As regards the alternative argument of the learned counsel for the appellants for reduction of sentence, I find that the occurrence took place on 24.5.1992 i.e. about 21 years back. Since then, the accused- appellants are suffering the agony of long trial and criminal prosecution. They have been suffering mental agony. Appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 323 read with Section34 IPC. They are first offenders and only simple injuries by brickbats have been attributed to them. At that time, Sukhwinder Singh was of the age of 25 years and Gurdev Singh was of the age of 48 years. They were not armed with any deadly weapons and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I find that one opportunity should be given to them to reform themselves.
Therefore, it is ordered that appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh be released on probation. Hence, the order imposing Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [14] sentence on appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdev Singh passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that they shall be released on probation on their executing probation bonds with one surety each in the sum of `10,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/successor Court undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of execution of bond and they shall appear and undergo the sentence as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds be furnished within one month before the trial/successor Court.
As regards, appellant Parminder Singh, he has already undergone two months of sentence. He has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC. He has also suffered the agony of long trial and criminal prosecution for the last 21 years. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of of this Court in Raj Kapur v. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) RCR (Cr.) 386, wherein it is held that conviction of accused under Sections 307 IPC and 452 IPC was confirmed but the conviction of the accused under Section 307 and 452 IPC was reduced to already undergone. It has been held that the occurrence in that case took place in the year 1987. The accused were facing the agony of criminal prosecution for 13 years. They must have also suffered physically, mentally and economically. It violated their fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India and the sentence was reduced to already undergone.
On the same point, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2004 (2) RCR (Cr.) 786, in which the accused were convicted and Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [15] sentenced for 7 years for the offence under Sections 307 and 324/34 IPC. The accused were facing trial and appeal for 17 years. The accused were young at the time of commission of offence. They were not previous convicts and living peacefully. Their sentence was reduced to already undergone. However amount of fine was enhanced to `30,000/- to be paid to the injured.
Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Maha Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2004 (3) RCR (Cr.) 372, in which it has been observed as under:-
"16. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is apparent from the records that no injury was caused to the complainant party at the time of alleged occurrence. As per allegations, one of the appellants-accused was armed with a gun. He never tried to repeat the shot, as such, no attempt has been made to take undue benefit of the dominant situation, in which the appellants-accused were placed at that time. Fear of being sent behind the bars had been lurking in their minds for the last about thirteen years. It has its desired effect of reforming them and at present, as per information supplied, they are leading a disciplined life. Now one of them is 60 years, another is 71 years old and third one is 48 years old. If at this stage, appellants are sent behind the bars, not only they, but their families will also suffer. It will also vitiate the atmosphere in the village. The appellants has already remained in jail for more than three months during their trial and after their Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [16] conviction.
17. Keeping in view provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and interpretation thereof, judicial compassion can play a role and leniency can be shown to the appellants-accused for mental agony, which was suffered by them due to long drawn litigation before the trial Court and also during the pendency of his appeal in this Court for the last about 13 years."
I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. The law laid down therein fully apply to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view the fact that appellant Parminder Singh is also facing the agony of long trial and criminal prosecution for the last 21 years and he was first offender and is residing peacefully now, his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of four years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and he is also directed to pay fine of `1,000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone be set off from the sentence imposed.
Further, keeping in view the facts of the present case, Parminder Singh is directed to deposit compensation of `1 Lac payable to the injured in equal shares within one month from today before the trial Court/successor Court.
Cr. Appeal Nos.S-87-SB of 1999 etc. [17] With the modification in the sentence as aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No.S-87-SB of 1999 is partly allowed.
As Parminder Singh is on bail, his bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
Since Umrao Singh (appellant No.3 in Criminal Appeal No.S- 87-SB of 1999) is stated to have died during the pendency of appeal, as such appeal qua him is abated.
March 18, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*