Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 389 (PNJ)

Kuldip Singh and Major Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-04-06

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners Kuldip Singh and Major Singh, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 435 and 427, Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the one 24.12.1986, complainant Chanan Singh, moved an application before the DSP, Ajnala, for the registration of a case against the petitioners, wherein he alleged that on his application for demarcation and measurement of the pits, the Girdawar and the Patwari came to the village. The petitioners stopped the demarcation proceedings. On the night of 23.12.1986 at about 11 PM, the petitioner put the haveli of the complainant on fire as a result of which, three hundred bundles of paddy straw, five trees; i.e. one Safaida, three kikkar and one black berry tree, and the toria in about one killa area, were burnt to ashes. The motive as stated in the application was that in the evening before the occurrence, Patwari and Girdawar had come for demarcation. Both the petitioners came near the house of the complainant and gave him filthy abuses and continued giving him the abuses for about three hours. On the basis of the application, the case was registered and after completion of the investigation, the petitioners were challaned under Sections 435 and 427, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Area Magistrate. Copies of the documents were supplied to the petitioners. Charges under Sections 435 and 427, Indian Penal Code, were framed against the petitioners to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Niranjan Singh, PW-1, Balkar Singh, PW-2, Chanan Singh, PW-3 and ASI Swaran Singh, PW-4. 4. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing the prosecution evidence were put to them. The petitioners denied those circumstances and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 5. The learned Magistrate, Ajnala, vide judgment and order dated 11.8.1987 convicted the petitioners under Sections 427 and 435, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. The petitioners denied those circumstances and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 5. The learned Magistrate, Ajnala, vide judgment and order dated 11.8.1987 convicted the petitioners under Sections 427 and 435, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 435, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners was directed to undergo RI for two months. The petitioners were further sentenced to undergo RI for four months each under Section 427, Indian Penal Code. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who vide judgment dated 4.2.1987, dismissed the appeal and did not even give the benefit of probation on the plea that the petitioners had set on fire the property of the complainant, who was a farmer, and as such they had committed a heinous crime. 7. I have heard Shri Darshan Lal, Dy. D.A., Punjab, for the State. No assistance has come from the side of the petitioners. 8. I have taken note of the grounds of appeal and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgments passed by the courts below. The identity in this case is fully established on the basis of the statements made by Chanan Singh, Niranjan Singh and Balkar Singh. The electric light was there at the spot and the petitioners could be easily identified in that light. Moreover, the petitioners belonged to the same village. PW Niranjan Singh categorically deposed that he woke up during the night in order to urinate and he saw petitioner Kuldip Singh, who was having a bottle of kerosene oil in his hand and Major Singh was having a match box and they set the paddy and toria crops on fire as a result of which the above articles and three kikar, one safaida and one Jamun trees were burnt to ashes. The motive in this case is also established. Thus, the conviction of the petitioners is maintained but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings since the year 1986, their substantive sentence stands modified to the already undergone. 9. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of. Revision dismissed.