Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 457 (PNJ)

Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-03-26

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide judgment dated December 1, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Gurdarshan Singh son of Balwant Singh stands convicted under Section 308 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He has preferred this appeal against the said judgment of conviction and sentence. 2. The present case was registered on the statement (Exhibit PA) of Parminder Singh (PW1). The said statement is reproduced as under :- "I am resident of village Chak Kalan. Yesterday, on 4.5.1989, I and my nephew Narinder Singh son of Amarjot Singh on our tractor trolley, laden with wheat, were going from village Chak Kalan to Mullanpur Mandi and when tractor trolley reached on the bridge of Sua, within the area of village Kailpur, Gurdarshan Singh son of Balwant Singh. Jat, resident of Chak Kalan, Police Station Dakha, came from the opposite side in his tempo carrying passengers and was going towards village Kailpur. On seeing me, he stopped his tempo in front of my tractor and blocked my way. I and my nephew persistently asked Gurdarshan Singh to keep his tempo on one side, but he remained adamant and did not drive his tempo backward. I drove my tractor backward to pass from one side, but he again made his tempo to come just in front of my tractor. I and my nephew Narinder Singh begged Gurdarshan Singh to pass his tempo from one side, but he started calling bad names to me and Narinder Singh and in an angry mood, Gurdarshan Singh aforesaid took out an iron rod from him tempo and hit it on left side of my head, as a result of which injury I became unconscious. Gurdarshan Singh hurriedly sped away with his tempo towards Kailpur. Apart from other passengers, Harnek Singh son of Harbans Singh, Jat of village Chak Kalan was also one of the passengers in the tempo and he also saw the occurrence. I and Narinder Singh came to Mullanpur and I got my injury stitched and bandaged privately from Dr. Sukhdev Singh. Today, my mothers sisters husband Harmail Singh of village Sowaddi has got me admitted in New Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. I have no previous enmity with Gurdarshan Singh afore-said and he be proceeded under law. I and Narinder Singh came to Mullanpur and I got my injury stitched and bandaged privately from Dr. Sukhdev Singh. Today, my mothers sisters husband Harmail Singh of village Sowaddi has got me admitted in New Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. I have no previous enmity with Gurdarshan Singh afore-said and he be proceeded under law. I have heard my statement which is correct and the occurrence had taken place at 2-30 PM". 3. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned in this case. On committal proceedings, he was charged under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Parminder Singh as PW-1, Narinder Singh as PW-2. Harnek Singh as PW-3, Amar Chand, Assistant Sub Inspector as PW-4, Dr. Harbinder Singh as PW-5, Head Constable Paramjit Singh as PW 6, Constable Baljit Singh as PW-7, Nachhattar Singh Draftsman as PW8 and Dr. Yoginder Gupta, Registrar of Surgery as PW-9. 5. The stand taken by the appellant was of false implication at the instance of Narinder Singh and Harnek Singh PWs. According to him Parminder Singh PW had suffered head injury by falling from the tractor. 6. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 308 Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as already indicated above. 7. I have heard Mr. GS Punia, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. HP Singh Raja, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 8. At the very out-set, Mr. Punia has submitted that he does not press the appeal on merits. Instead he has prayed for releasing the appellant on probation. 9. Mr. Punia has submitted that Parminder Singh injured, PW1 has not supported the prosecution case and that the conviction of the appellant has been recorded on the testimony of other two witnesses namely Narinder Singh (PW2) and Harnek Singh (PW3). Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant had entered into a compromise with the appellant after the present occurrence, as is clear from the impugned judgment and the appellant for this reason at least deserves to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Offenders Act. 10. Mr. Raja has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Although Mr. 10. Mr. Raja has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Although Mr. Punia has not assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on merits, yet being the first Court of appeal, I have scanned the entire evidence. I do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the same is hereby maintained. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the occurrence relates to the year 1989. The appellant has already suffered the rigour of protracted trial spread over 14 years. Another material fact which goes in favour of the appellant is that Paramjit Singh injured had entered into a compromise with the appellant as is indicated in the impugned order of sentence itself. This probably was the reason that Paramjit Singh when stepped into the witness-box during the trial did not support the prosecution case. No minimum sentence has been provided by the Statute under Section 308 Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case especially the compromise effected between the complainant and the appellant, in my view the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is ordered accordingly. Let the appellant furnish his personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of six months before the concerned trial Court. However, it is made clear that the bonds furnished by the appellant would be without any supervision. With the modification in the sentence part as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.