Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1118 (PNJ)

Jaipal Son of Akhe Ram v. State of Haryana

2003-08-13

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - Jaipal son of Akhe Ram has been convicted under Section 436 Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide impugned judgment dated 12.5.1990 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of one year. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of Smt. Shanti wife of Daya Chand PW-2 asserting therein that her son Birsal who was employed in Army had come on leave. He had an altercation with Jaipal-appellant and two others namely Mohinder and Satpal. Jaipal at that time had presurrised Birsal to get all their previous disputes settled with Satbir and when Birsal had failed to render any constructive help, Jaipal and others had exchanged hot words and abused Birsal. It is then the case of the prosecution that Smt. Shanti and Daya Chand had intervened and this agitated Jaipal who threatened them of teaching a lesson. He had also threatened to set the house of Satbir on fire if the previous disputes are not compromised regarding the death of Risal Singh. Satbir had got frightened in this respect. 3. It is worth mentioning here that so far as death of Risal Singh is concerned, Jaipal and his two co-accused namely Mohinder Singh and Satpal were booked in a case bearing FIR No. 77 dated 10.6.1989 under Sections 306/341/34 Indian Penal Code and were convicted by the trial Court. They had filed a separate appeal bearing No. 170-SB of 1990 in which they have been acquitted by me vide my separate judgment of the even date. 4. Reverting back to the facts of the case, the prosecution story further is that on the night of 9/10.8.1989 Smt. Shanti PW-2 woke up to urinate, she noticed that Jaipal was setting chhappar of Satbir on fire. She raised a noise. Hawa Singh and Dhup Singh rushed to the spot and saved the cows and some belongings of Satbir by taking them out of the chhappar. Satbir immediately went to Sarpanch, who used to reside at his tubewell at some distance and from where there they went to the police station to lodge the report. The police swung into action and took into possession some burnt ashes of chhapar and belongings of Satbir. 5. Satbir immediately went to Sarpanch, who used to reside at his tubewell at some distance and from where there they went to the police station to lodge the report. The police swung into action and took into possession some burnt ashes of chhapar and belongings of Satbir. 5. The appellant was arrested in this case and after completion of the investigation, was challaned. He was charged under Section 436 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. 6. Satbir PW-1, Shanti w/o Daya Chand PW-2 and Hawa Singh PW-3 are the star witnesses of the occurrence. They have unfolded the prosecution story in one and the same manner. Besides this PW-4 Narender Yadav is the draftsman. He had prepared the scaled man Ex. PC. Braham Das Head Constable has been examined as PW-5. He has clicked certain photographs which are Exhs. P-1 to P-3. PW-6 is Head Constable Rattan Singh who tendered the copy of FIR No. 77 dated 10.6.1989 under Sections 306, 341, 34 Indian Penal Code against Jaipal and his co- accused namely Mohinder and Satpal. PW-8 Vikram Singh Constable is also a formal witness. PW-9 Banwari Lal ASI is the Investigating Officer. Certain witnesses were given (up) as unnecessary. 7. The appellant when examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code took the stand of false implication in this case. 8. I have heard Mr. Dhruv Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 9. Mr. Dhruv Dayal contends vehemently that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the present appellant to the hilt as the evidence produced by the prosecution is weak on many points. He then contends that the statements of Satbir and Smt. Shanti are discrepent on many material points which speak volumes of the false implications of the present appellant and as such he deserves acquittal. 10. Learned counsel in the alternative has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant has already faced the rigour of protracted trial. 11. 10. Learned counsel in the alternative has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant has already faced the rigour of protracted trial. 11. Refuting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the learned State counsel contends that present appellant is involved in setting the chhappar of Satbir on fire as he was adamant to get the old cases settled in one way or the other and when the complainant side had not shown any constructive response in this matter, the present appellant went to the extent of committing this offence. According to the State counsel, the appellant doesnt deserve any sympathy. 12. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. 13. It is no denying the fact that in this case the chhapper has been set on fire. It belonged to Satbir PW and there is cogent evidence on the file that first of all the present appellant has exchanged hot words with Birsal, the son of Smt. Shanti PW-6 at about 6 p.m. and had exchanged hot words and abuses at about 9 p.m. It is also in the evidence that he had threatened Satbir of the dire consequences as he wanted some compromise in the case of death of Risal Singh and when he did not succeed he went infuriated and ultimately set the chhapper of Satbir on fire which was reduced into ashes. 14. No doubt Satbir and Smt. Shanti are from one family but this itself cannot be a ground to be seen against the prosecution. In villages normally nobody comes forward because of party faction. In the present case, as stated above Jaipal, the present appellant was certainly inimical towards the complainant side because of the previous litigations going on between both the sides. No doubt certain discrepancies have occurred in the statements of the above-said two witnesses of the occurrence but that by itself would not dent the prosecution case to the core. The investigation in this case is not at all tainted. The police immediately reached the spot, certain photographs were also clicked in which the chhapper which is set on fire has been shown. The investigation in this case is not at all tainted. The police immediately reached the spot, certain photographs were also clicked in which the chhapper which is set on fire has been shown. In my view Shanti PW-2 is the true witness of the occurrence being the most natural one and she immediately narrated the whole tale to PW-Satbir immediately after the occurrence and as such there is no reason to doubt these witnesses on any count. 15. In the sequel to the aforestated discussion I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the present appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The conviction as recorded by learned trial Court is thus maintained. 16. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I do feel that the present appellant deserves some leniency. 17. Keeping in view the fact that the present case relates to year 1989 and the appellant has also suffered the rigour of protracted trial of long 14 years, I reduce the substantive sentence of 10 years awarded by the learned trial Court to three years. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is increased form Rs. 100/- to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo RI for six months. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three months from today and in the event of the said deposit, the same shall be disbursed by the trial Court to Satbir Singh-PW whose chhappar was set on fire. 18. Except in the modification in the quantum of sentence as referred to above, the present appeal stands dismissed. 19. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court so that the necessary steps can be taken at once to take the present appellant in custody to serve out his remaining part of substantive sentence. Appeal dismissed.