Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1424 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-10-15

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Swaran Singh alias Shami son of Gura Singh, Narvail Singh alias Naila son of Ishar Singh and two sons of Swaran Singh namely Balkar Singh alias Bhukan and Lakhwinder Singh alias Ladi vide impugned judgment dated 10.9.1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Balkar Singh and Narvail Singh under section 307 Indian Penal Code RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. Swaran Singh and Lakhwinder Singh under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on 13.9.1995 complainant Ranjit Singh alongwith his Phuphar (fathers sisters husband) Gurdip Singh and brother Daljit Singh were returning to their behak after witnessing the cycle show which was being held in their village Thathi. Lakhwinder Singh and Narvail Singh had also gone to see the said cycle show and there they had some altercation with Daljit Singh as Daljit Singh had lodged a protest with them that they had spoiled their crops with their cattle. Lakhwinder Singh had come to his house and after some time the complainant alongwith Daljit Singh and Gurdip Singh also started for their behak. Daljit Singh was about 15/20 Karams ahead of them. When he reached the house of Swaran Singh, they saw Lakhwinder Singh standing on the roof. On seeing Daljit Singh, he came down. At that time Balkar Singh armed with a kirpan, Lakhwinder Singh armed with a gandasi, Swaran Singh armed with a dang and Narvail Singh armed with gandasi came out of their house and it was about 7 PM at that time. Swaran Singh raised a lalkaa that Daljit Singh should not be allowed to escape and he should be taught a lesson for lodging protest with them. At this Balkar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Narvail Singh appellants inflicted injuries with their respective weapons on the head of Daljit Singh. Daljit Singh consequently fell down and Swaran Singh gave him dang blow on his right arm when he was lying on the ground. At this Balkar Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Narvail Singh appellants inflicted injuries with their respective weapons on the head of Daljit Singh. Daljit Singh consequently fell down and Swaran Singh gave him dang blow on his right arm when he was lying on the ground. Lakhwinder Singh and Narvail Singh also gave other gandasi blows from their blunt sides on the head of Daljit Singh. Complainant Ranjit Singh and Gurdip Singh raised lalkaras and the appellants ran away with their respective weapons. Daljit Singh became unconscious. He remained hospitalised for a pretty long time at Amritsar where he was also operated upon. On the statement of Ranjit Singh on 16.9.1995 the present case was registered. The investigation was taken up by ASI Bhupinder Singh who visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan, took into possession blood stained clothes. He also arrested appellants and made recoveries of weapons from them. 3. The motive as projected by the prosecution is that on 12.9.1995, Swaran Singh and his sons had damaged the paddy field of Daljit Singh and on the day of occurrence Daljit Singh had lodged protest with them. 4. Balkar Singh and Narvail Singh appellants were charged under Section 307 Indian Penal Code whereas Lakhwinder Singh and Swaran Singh were charged under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW1 Dr. Gurdev Singh, PW2 Dr. Sant Parkash Singh, PW3 ASI Amarjit Singh, PW4 Rishi Ram Draftsman, PW5 ASI Bhupinder Singh, PW6 Ranjit Singh, PW7 Gurdip Singh, PW8 Gurdial Singh, PW9 HC Nazar Singh. 6. The plea taken by the appellants was of false implication. The case of the appellant was that Daljit Singh had fallen from his own tractor on Disc Harrow which was being driven by his brother Ranjit Singh and consequently received injuries. 7. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced all the four appellants as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the records of the case. 9. Mr. Sangha does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the records of the case. 9. Mr. Sangha does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. The main argument advanced in this regard was that all the appellants remained in custody for about one year during trial and after conviction also they remained in jail as convicts for three years and about eight months, as their sentence was suspended in May 2000. The learned counsel thus, contends that out of total sentence of ten years, the appellants have undergone about half of the sentence. It is then contended that in this case the motive is not very strong. Further submission made by Mr. Sangha is that all the appellants were in between the age of 20 to 45 years at time of alleged occurrence. Balkar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were of the age of hardly 19/20 years at that time and by now with the flux or time, they have settled and are having minor children. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for a sympathetic tilt with regard to sentence. 10. Refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned State Counsel vehemently submits that the appellants do not deserve any concession so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned as they have caused serious injuries on the person of Daljit Singh for which he had become unable to speak. According to the learned State Counsel. Daljit Singh in fact had virtually became deaf and dumb in this case. 11. Although Mr. Sangha has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, yet I have once again rescanned the entire evidence and am of the view that all the appellants have been rightly convicted for the charges framed against them. Their conviction is, thus, confirmed. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The present occurrence relates to the year 1995. The appellants by now have faced the rigor of protected trial of eight years. Their conviction is, thus, confirmed. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The present occurrence relates to the year 1995. The appellants by now have faced the rigor of protected trial of eight years. As is evident from the record Lakhwinder Singh and Balkar Singh were of the age of 19/20 years respectively. No doubt Daljit Singh have received serious injuries in this case for which he remained hospitalised for a considerable period but keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the ends of justice would be adequately met if all the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI of seven years instead of 10 years as awarded by the trial court. Ordered accordingly. 13. So far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same shall remain intact. 14. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal is dismissed. 15. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the all concerned quarters for taking further necessary steps according to law. Appeal dismissed.