Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1362 (PNJ)

Gurnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-09

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2002
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 29 of 1990 filed by Gumam Singh and Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1990 filed by Swaran Singh. 2. The petitioners have been convicted under sections 326/324/323/34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further RI for three months under section 326 IPC to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further RI for two months under section 324 IPC and to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further RI for one month under section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence with the only modification that the amount of fine was ordered to be paid to Harpal Singh injured. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.1984, at 5.15 P.M. petitioners Gurnam Singh and Swaran Singh and one Kulwant Singh (whose name was dropped by the complainant during trial, as he was not served) caused grievous and simple injuries to Harpal Singh complainant. There was dispute about a plot of land, which was the motive for the accused to cause injuries to the complainant. One day before the occurrence, there was a quarrel on taking up of soil from the fields. It is alleged that when the complainant passed from the front of the house of accused Kulwant Singh, Swaran Singh armed with a dang, Gurnam Singh armed with a toki and Kulwant Singh armed with a spear (barchha) came from the house of Kulwant Singh and on giving of lalkara by Kulwant Singh, complainant was over powered and while Swaran Singh gave a dang blow on the right ankle of the complainant; Kulwant Singh gave two barchha blows and Gurnam Singh gave lathi blow on the right knee of the complainant. On medical examination, Dr. B.L. Barisal found the following injuries on the complainant "1. Incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm into bone deep cut on the left eyebrow. 2. Incised wound with swelling of the eye 3 cm x 0.5 cm below the left eye with chemosis and redness. 3. On medical examination, Dr. B.L. Barisal found the following injuries on the complainant "1. Incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm into bone deep cut on the left eyebrow. 2. Incised wound with swelling of the eye 3 cm x 0.5 cm below the left eye with chemosis and redness. 3. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm on the right knee joint. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 3 cm on the right ankle." Injuries No. 2 to 4 were declared by doctor to be simple in nature and the complainant was advised x-ray with regard to injuries No. 1 and 2. Doctor gave the opinion that the injuries had been caused within fresh duration. In the option of doctor, injuries No. 1 to 3 had been caused with sharp edged weapon and injury No. 4 was the result of blunt weapon. Ex. PW5/A is the carbon copy of medico-legal report with regard to. Harpal Singh complainant and Ex. PW5/R is the pictorial diagram showing the sites of injuries. 4 The injured was taken to the hospital and intimation was sent to the police station. As a result of injuries, left eye of the complainant had to be removed by operation and since police did not take necessary action, complaint was filed on 13.2.1985. On 22.1.1987, complainant dropped Kulwant Singh, as he had gone out of the country. 5. At pre-charge stage, the complainant examined Baljinder Singh PW-2, Bhag Singh PW-3, Dr. Sarabjit Singh PW-4. Dr. B.L. Bansal PW-5 and complainant appeared as PW-1. At the post charge stage, complainant appeared himself and also produced Baljinder Singh, Bhag Singh and Dr. B.L. Bansal PWs. The accused denied the allegations of the complainant, but did not lead any defence evidence. 6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court believed the version of the complainant, which was also corroborated by Baljinder Singh PW-2 and Bhag Singh PW-3, and medical evidence furnished by Dr. B.L. Bansal PW-5. It was held that even though case against Kulwant Singh had been dropped, there being common intention, petitioners were liable not only for the injuries caused by them, but also for the grievous injuries caused by Kulwant Singh. The view taken by the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence these revision petitions. 7. B.L. Bansal PW-5. It was held that even though case against Kulwant Singh had been dropped, there being common intention, petitioners were liable not only for the injuries caused by them, but also for the grievous injuries caused by Kulwant Singh. The view taken by the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence these revision petitions. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that once name of Kulwant Singh had been dropped, there was no justification for conviction of the petitioners. Reliance is placed on decisions reported in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778; Ram Kissen Shaw and another v. Smt. Chandravati Shaw and another, 1976 Cr1. L.J. 1797 (Calcutta) and Maje Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) C.L.R. 142 (P&H). It was also submitted that having regard to delay in hearing of the appeal, sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. For this purpose, reliance is placed on decisions of this Court in Basant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports 578 : [2000(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 437 (Pb. & Hry.)] and Raj Kapur v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 386: [2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 172 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 8. Counsel for the State supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. 9. In Sawal Dass case (supra), it was held that a person should be held responsible for his individual act, where persons for whose acts he was proceeded against with the aid of section 34 IPC are acquitted. In Maje Singhs case (supra), in the facts of that case, it was held that when author of injuries has been acquitted, others could not be vicariously convicted for the said injuries., In Ram Kissen Shaws case (supra), it was held that where complaint against the main accused was quashed, others could not be proceeded against for abetment. In Basant Singhs case and Raj Kapurs case (supra), sentence was reduced to be period already undergone having regard to delay in hearing of the appeal. 10. In Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 and in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413, it was held that where three or four named accused were acquitted, the Court could not convict the fourth accused on the basis of constructive liability. 10. In Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51 and in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413, it was held that where three or four named accused were acquitted, the Court could not convict the fourth accused on the basis of constructive liability. This decision was distinguished in Sukh Ram v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 323. 11. In Harshad Singh Pahelvansingh Thakore v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 SC 710, it was held that even where some out of several accused are acquitted, if presence and participation of plurality of assailants is proved, the conjoint culpability for the crime is inescapable. Inspite of acquittal of some persons, it is open to the Court to consider whether the remaining persons were guilty of an offence by involving section 34 IPC by virtue of having committed the offence along with the acquitted accused. Each case has to be decided on the evidence led and on the facts and circumstances of the case, Similar view was expressed in Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 318 : [1991(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 645 (SC)], Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1993 SC 777: [1992(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 534 (SC)] and Pipal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(2) SCC 292 : [2001(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 163 (SC)]. Thus, it depends upon facts of individual cases, whether as a result of acquittal of one accused, others were guilty of common intention or to be held liable for acts of such accused. 12. In the present case, it is clear that Gurnam Singh and Swaran Singh clearly shared common intention with Kulwant Singh, though in any case, their liability for individual injuries attributed to them will remain. No doubt, on account of delay liberal view has to be taken, but in view of recent decision in a seven judge Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002(4) SCC 578: [2002(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 370 (SC)], the effect of delay has to be seen from case to case. 13. No doubt, delay has to be kept in mind, injuries caused to the victim cannot be ignored. 13. No doubt, delay has to be kept in mind, injuries caused to the victim cannot be ignored. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding conviction of the petitioners, the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone subject to the condition that they will pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the victim within six months from today, failing which sentence already awarded by the trial Court will stand.