Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sobha Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 19 August, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002
Date of Decision: August 19, 2010
Sobha Singh and others .......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Farid Singh Virk, Advocate
for the appellants
Mr.JS Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
<><><>
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court") whereby in case FIR No.115 dated 31.10.1997 registered at Police Station Ghagga, the accused- appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
2. The brief facts, as narrated in paras 2 to 6 of the judgment of learned Trial Court, are that:
"On 31.10.97, an intimation was received at P.S.Ghagga. On receiving the intimation, ASI Gurjant Singh along with other police officials went to Police Station, Samana, where they Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -2- received the medicolegal report regarding the injured. Thereupon, the statement of PW Kapoor Kaur was recorded. She stated that she is the wife of late Nazar Singh, aged about 60 years. She (Kapoor Kaur) has been residing at the Dera situated outside the village along with her family. On 30.10.97, it was Diwali day. Her son Amarjit Singh and grand-son Satnam Singh alias Satta had consumed liquor. On that account, there was some altercation between the father and son. The complainant called her daughter-in-law Vir Kaur wife of Baldev Singh and Sama Singh s/o Hazoor Singh, r/o Dera Amritsaria who were residing at a short distance from the Dera of Kapoor Kaur. She also called Jagtar Singh s/o Rattan Singh from his Dera. Thereafter, Sama Singh and Jagtar Singh got reconciled the matter in between father and son.
Kapoor Kaur goes on stating that at about 9.00 p.m. Shisha Singh armed with gandasi, Hazoor Singh armed with dang, Sobha Singh armed with gun, Swaran Singh armed with gandasi and Chattar Singh s/o Waryam Singh armed with 12 bore gun came at the Dera and started raising lalkara outside the Dera. At that time, Shisha Singh accused called up name of Amarjit Singh and started abusing him from outside and raised the noise that Amarjit Singh and others should come out and they (accused) will be taught him a lesson. On hearing the noise from outside, Amarjit Singh got up from the cot and came to the courtyard and thereupon accused Shisha Singh, who was armed with gandasi gave him dasti gandasi blow hitting Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -3- Amarjit Singh on his neck. On receiving the blow, Amarjit Singh fell down and became unconscious. In the meantime, when Amarjit Singh was lying on the ground accused Hazoor Singh (accused) gave a dasti stick blow on the head of Amarjit Singh. Gurbax Singh and Chattar Singh accused remained outside and were hurling abuses from outside and repeating that Amarjit Singh and others should not be spared today. Upon this, thereafter Kapoor Kaur called her brother Sama Singh. Vir Kaur & Satnam Singh raised noise "No maro-Na maro" and upon this the accused along with their respective weapons fled from the Dera.
The complainant left the injured at her Dera and Jagtar Singh drove a tractor along with complainant and Vir Kaur so as to give the information to the village Sarpanch. When the tractor which was driven by Jagtar Singh was about to climb the canal then accused Sobha Singh came forward and fired from his 12 bore gun and fire struck on the left hand finger of Kapoor Kaur and also struck on the left thigh. One splinter also struck on the upper lip of Vir Kaur and one splinter struck on the arm of Jagtar Singh. Jagtar Singh drove the tractor to the house of Jassa Singh and the latter (Jassa Singh) took out his car and got admitted the complainant and the remaining injured at Civil Hospital, Samana. Amarjit Singh injured was brought by Sama Singh to the Hospital.
The complainant stated that in defence Amarjit Singh and Satnam Singh also gave injuries to Shisha Singh with their Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -4- sticks, that motive for the occurrence was that last year Shisha Singh got engaged Satnam Singh from his near relatives and somehow the engagement was broken. Shisha Singh has a grudge in his mind that accused had inflicted injuries upon her and others.
After recording the statement of Kirpal Kaur, the endorsement was made by ASI Gurjant Singh and the case was registered vide FIR Ex.PA. The medico legal reports of the injured were taken into possession by ASI Gurjant Singh on 31.10.97, on the basis of injuries described by the Doctor, case for certain offences including u/s 307,149 IPC was made out against the accused. ASI Gurjant Singh along with other police officials visited the spot. The statement of the witness was recorded."
3. The learned Trial Court charge sheeted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 307,324,452,506,148,427,149 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, viz., Dr.Satish Arora as PW1; Amarjit Singh as PW2; MHC Malkiat singh as PW3; Head Constable Satnam Singh as PW4; Suresh Kumar as PW5; Amarjit Singh as PW6; Kapur Kaur as PW7; SI Rajesh Kumar as PW8 and Vir Kaur as PW9. PWs Bhupinder Singh, Sama Singh and Jagtar Singh were given up having been won over. PWs Resham Ram, Constable Satpal Singh, Balwinder Singh, Kulbir Singh, Daljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Akashdeep Singh, DSP Pritpal Singh were given up as unnecessary.
Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -5-
5. Statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded their false implication.
6. Upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above in the outset.
7. Hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he has prayed for reduction of sentence of the accused-appellants so awarded by taking leniency.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State has furnished custody certificate, which is taken on record, and submitted that no leniency should be shown to the appellants since the offence has been proved.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another"
observed as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -6- fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment"
11. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded.
The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.
2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly".
12. As per custody certificate(s) produced on record, appellant Sobha Singh has already undergone for 11 months and 17 days, appellant Swaran Singh has already undergone for 2 months and 7 days and appellant Shisha Singh has already undergone for 2 months and 23 days, only. From Criminal Appeal No.507-SB of 2002 -7- the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case is of the year 1997 i.e. 13.10.1997, and the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for about 13 years. They have not mis-used the concession of bail and no previous antecedents have been brought to surface so as to condemn them as habitual offenders.
13. Keeping in view the fact that the accused-appellants have faced the agony of trial for about 13 years and as stated, are not habitual offenders, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by them, but their conviction stands maintained.
14. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the appellants, the complainant-injured deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.1 lac in total besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. The accused-appellants shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of Rs.1 lac, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant-injured and an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses.
15. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed.
16. With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
August 19, 2010 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No