Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1283 (PNJ)

Bhim Singh v. State Of U. T. Chandigarh

2000-10-31

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2000
Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. In an occurrence under F.I.R. No. 1 dated 1.1.1995, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, Panjab Singh complainant and other injured in this case and with reference to Panjab Singh in particular it may be mentioned that he allegedly gave two chapti blows on the head of Gurdev Singh and caused his death and his other associates caused simple injuries to other persons from the accused side. In that case the main accused Kuldip Singh has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code whereas the remaining co-accused have been convicted under Section 323 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them have been sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. This is a cross case of that case. In this case also the allegations have been that when some remarks were passed against the women folk of a particular State, an altercation between the two sides took place. Dilbagh Singh one of the appellants in this case allegedly gave two Kulhari blows to Panjab Singh on his oocipital and parietal region. The injuries on his person were declared to be dangerous to life and were covered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The other appellants in this case, namely, Bhim Singh, Rajinder Singh, Ram Kumar, Birkha Ram and Rohtash inflicted simple injuries to Rikhi Ram. The injured wre removed to P.G.I. where SI Rajinder Singh PW.8 recorded the statement of Rikhi Ram PW.5 Ex.PE and after making his endorsement Ex.PE/1, he sent the same for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR EX.PE/2 was recorded. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were sent to face their trial. 2. At the trial the learned trial Judge believing the version of the complainant convicted Dilbagh Singh appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and his co-appellants under Section 307 read with Section 145 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentencd to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the appellants were also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the appellants were also convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Bhim Singh, Birkha and Rajinder Singh appellans were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Dilbagh Singh, Ram Kumar and Rohtas were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. We have gone through the statements of Rikhi Ram P.W.5 and Panjab Singh PW.7 and find that this was a case of free fight and both the sides caused injuries to the persons of the opposite group with their respective weapons. There is no reason to dispute the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and we are of the opinion that the act done by the accused persons was their individual act to inflict the nature of the injuries found on the persons of the victims and there was no applicability of Section 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that no case under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against Bhim Singh, Rajinder Singh, Ram Kumar, Birkha Ram and Rohtash appellants and they are acquitted of the said charge. However, their conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for the individual act is maintained and they are sentenced to the period which they have already undergone. So far as the conviction of Dilbagh Singh appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is maintained. However, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. 4. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal party allowed.