Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1195 (PNJ)

Tejinder Singh Alias Kala v. State Of Punjab

2002-11-13

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who convicted the appellant under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for six months. 2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 1.4.1986 the afternoon peace of the New Grain Market was shattered when shots rang out and two of which hit Meja Singh on his neck and left eye. According to the prosecution, Meja Singh and his son Satnam Singh were feeding fodder to their cattle and the time was about 1.00 p.m. Tejinder Singh alias Kala had come there, whipped out a pistol from his dub and fired four shots at Meja Singh injuring him on the left side of his neck and left eye. The other two shots missed Meja Singh. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sajjan Singh accompanied his brother and exhorted him to teach Meja Singh a lesson for getting the land released. The occurrence was witnessed by Narottam Singh who was standing nearly and after the occurrence had taken place the accused escaped on bicycles. Injured Meja Singh was removed to Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar where he was medico-legally examined by the doctor at 2.15 p.m. who found the following injuries on his person :- "1. A lacerated wound 0.8 x 0.5 cm on the back of left side of neck 5 cm below and lateral to the occipital protuberance. It was bleeding. 2 A lacerated wound 1 x 0.8 cm on the left lower eye lid in its inner half. It was bleeding. Patient was unable to open his eye." 3. On completion of the investigation of the case the appellant and his co- accused Sajjan Singh were challaned under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and committed them to the Court of Session. Tejinder Singh was charge- sheeted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code while Sajjan Singh was charge- sheeted under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 5. 4. The learned Magistrate supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and committed them to the Court of Session. Tejinder Singh was charge- sheeted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code while Sajjan Singh was charge- sheeted under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 5. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Amar Parkash Kataria, PW2 Dr. Jasbirpal Singh, PW3 G.D. Puri, PW4 Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, PW5 Dr. Inderjit Hundal, PW6 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gorea, PW7 SI Dewan Singh, PW8 Rishi Ram Draftsman, PW9 Narottam Singh, PW10 Satnam Singh, PW11 Constable Ujagar Singh, PW12 ASI Ajit Singh and PW13 Dr. Sohan Lal. 6. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and when called upon to enter into defence they examined DW1 Kuldip Singh, DW2 Ram Chand and DW3 Puran Chand. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted at the first instance that the bullet which was recovered from the person of the injured has not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and therefore the case of the prosecution is doubtful. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the direct evidence of the stamped witnesses. The ocular account of the injured witness has been supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is fully proved. 9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the FIR was lodged as back as on 1.4.1986 and since then the appellant is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings, therefore, in the matter of sentence the appellant should be visited with leniency. The learned counsel for the State has no objection if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is suffering the rigour of the criminal proceedings since 1986, therefore, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant is hereby reduced to one year and it is so ordered. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is suffering the rigour of the criminal proceedings since 1986, therefore, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant is hereby reduced to one year and it is so ordered. The appellant shall, however, pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo RI for three months. With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.