Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 367 (PNJ)

Sardara Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-03-24

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed against Judgment and order dated 1.6.1991, vide which appellants were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 304 Part-II, 324 and 325 Indian Penal Code. Following order was passed regarding sentence :- "i) Sardara Singh accused is convicted under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of its payment to suffer further R.I. for two months. He is further convicted under section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. ii) Sandhura Singh accused is convicted and sentenced under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of its payment to suffer further R.I. for two months. He is further convicted under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for two months. iii) Mohinder Singh accused is convicted under section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for two months. iv) Kewal Singh accused is convicted under section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for two months." 2. Shri Ghai, appearing for the appellants has stated that during pendency of this appeal, appellant Mohinder Singh son of Narain Singh has died. None of his near relatives has moved any application to continue with this appeal. Accordingly, qua him appeal abates. 3. Initially, appellants No. 1 to 4, alongwith Gagri alias Puran Singh, Joginder Singh son of Narain Singh, Darshan Singh son of Sher Singh, Charna son of Sarwan Singh and Bikker Singh son of Jaggar Singh were put to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 302, 324, 325, 452, 323, 326, 149 and 148 Indian Penal Code. FIR was recorded at the instance of Jal Kaur (PW6). 4. FIR was recorded at the instance of Jal Kaur (PW6). 4. It was case of the prosecution that on 11.3.1986 at about 9.00 P.M. the appellants and all the persons named above, fully armed, assembled with common intention to commit murder of Amar Singh and to cause injuries to Pritam Singh and Teja Singh. They also committed offence of rioting. It was further allegation that with common intention to cause death, they caused injuries to Amar Singh, Pritam Singh and Teja Singh and also tress-passed the house of Teja Singh. It had come on record that during occurrence, as alleged, injuries were also caused to the appellants in this appeal, regarding which cross- version was also recorded in FIR in question. For injuries caused to appellants, vide judgment and order of the even date, i.e. dated 1.6.1991, Teja Singh and Pritam Singh, injured in this appeal were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 326 and 324 Indian Penal Code. Their appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 242-SB of 1991 is also pending admitted in this Court and is fixed for hearing today. 5. Shri Ghai, by referring to following passage from the judgment of the trial Court, has vehemently contends that no case is made out for conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. Rather their guilt, if any, would fall within the provisions of Section 323 Indian Penal Code:- "8. As far as the remaining accused namely Sardara Singh, Mohinder Singh, Kewal Singh and Sandhura Singh are concerned learned counsel for the accused has submitted that no case under section 302 Indian Penal Code is made out against them and at the most only a case under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is made out against them for causing simple injuries to Amar Singh deceased. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the accused to the effect that no case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is made out is concerned, there appears to be strong force in it. Dr. Harinder Pal Singh, PW2 who performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amar Singh has stated that there was no fracture of any bone of the deceased. He further admitted that the injuries were superficial and as such in order to ascertain the proper cause of death he sent the visceras to the Chemical Examiner. Dr. Harinder Pal Singh, PW2 who performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Amar Singh has stated that there was no fracture of any bone of the deceased. He further admitted that the injuries were superficial and as such in order to ascertain the proper cause of death he sent the visceras to the Chemical Examiner. Statement of the doctor clearly goes to show that out of the 7 injuries 3 are abrasions, one is incised wound and three were bluish contusions. The doctor has further admitted that bruises and abrasions are the simplest form of injuries and they do not cause death. All this goes to show that the injuries on the person of Amar Singh deceased were found to be superficial one and the doctor was not in clear position to give the cause of death and as such he sent visceras to the Chemical Examiner in the first instance. Report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PZ/2 goes to show that alcohol was found in the contents of the Exhibits I, II, V & VI. Blood-alcohol concentration was found as 23.0 mgms/100 mls. No poison was found in the contents. This clearly goes to show that Amar Singh deceased had taken some liquor. The doctor has admitted that the possibility cannot be ruled out about the death of a person as alcohol concentration was found in this case. All this clearly goes to show that the injuries on the person of Amar Singh were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, it is a fact that Amar Singh died due to these injuries. The age of Amar Singh deceased was about 70 or 75 years and he was moderately built and nourished person. The accused, therefore, must be presumed to have the knowledge, that even if minor or simple injuries were caused to Amar Singh that could result into his death because he was a very old person. Intention of the accused was definitely not to cause death of Amar Singh because had it been so they would have given injuries to Amar Singh with the sharp sides of their weapons and they must have caused grievous injuries to Amar Singh on his vital parts. Since the Gandasas, etc. Intention of the accused was definitely not to cause death of Amar Singh because had it been so they would have given injuries to Amar Singh with the sharp sides of their weapons and they must have caused grievous injuries to Amar Singh on his vital parts. Since the Gandasas, etc. were not used by the accused from the sharp side while causing injuries, it goes to show that the accused had no intention to cause the death of Amar Singh or any other person, but at the same time it must be presumed to have the knowledge that the injuries even if it were simple or minor could result into the death of Amar Singh because he was old and a weak person. In these circumstances the case would fall under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and not under section 302 Indian Penal Code." 6. He further brought it to the notice of the court that injury, which as per opinion of the doctor, was found fatal to the deceased, was caused by Gagri alias Puran Singh, who was acquitted by the trial court, by giving him benefit of doubt. So far as appellants are concerned, they had caused simple injuries on non-vital parts of the body. He further brought it to the notice of the court that matter has since been patched up between the parties. To support his contention, he has referred to affidavits filed by Jal Kaur (PW6), complainant and Pritam Singh (PW4), the injured in this case. He stated that better sense has prevailed between the parties and they have decided to live in peace. He further stated that in the cross-appeal CRA No. 242-SB of 1991, Kewal Singh and Sandhura Singh have also filed affidavits to that effect. By stating these facts, Shri Ghai prays that appeal be accepted and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 7. Shri Deol and Shri Kapoor have failed to raise any objection to the arguments raised by Shri Ghai. 8. It is apparent from the records that so far as the appellants are concerned, they had caused injuries only on non-vital part of the body. This fact is apparent from the passage reproduced in preceding para of this judgment. It is apparent that all the injuries on the body of deceased Amar Singh were found to be simple in nature. It is apparent from the records that so far as the appellants are concerned, they had caused injuries only on non-vital part of the body. This fact is apparent from the passage reproduced in preceding para of this judgment. It is apparent that all the injuries on the body of deceased Amar Singh were found to be simple in nature. Under these circumstances, it is very doubtful as to whether offence committed by appellants will fall within the provisions of Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. 9. On 17.3.2004, following proceedings were recorded by this Court :- Complainant Jal Kaur is present in the Court and she has been identified by Sh. A.P.S. Deol. Shri Deol has placed on record affidavits of Jal Kaur and Pritam Singh, wherein they have stated that both the parties have entered into a compromise with the intervention of the respectables of the village and they do not wish to pursue the matter any further in order to maintain peace and harmony in the village. On specific question asked by the Court, both of them have accepted the authenticity of their affidavits." 10. It is apparent from the records that Jal Kaur and Pritam Singh have filed affidavits and have also appeared in the Court to state that the matter has since been compromised between the parties. 11. Shri Ghai further brought it to the notice of the court that appellants Sardara Singh, has already undergone ten months of imprisonment, Sandhura Singh has already undergone five months of imprisonment and Kewal Singh has already undergone two months of imprisonment. Shri Ghai has placed reliance on judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, to contend that the appellants be given a chance to rehabilitate in life. He has also stated that appeal is pending since 1991 and during this period, sword of conviction continued to hang over the heads of the appellants, which has its desired effect of reforming them and ultimately both the parties have decided to settle in peace. Due to pendency of this appeal, he stated that appellants might had suffered financially also. Keeping in view this fact, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Due to pendency of this appeal, he stated that appellants might had suffered financially also. Keeping in view this fact, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. He also placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587 and also two Division Bench judgments of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 600 and Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 467. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 486, in that case conviction was under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and Honble Supreme Court showed leniency and ordered the convicts in that case be released on probation. He has also referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, to support his contention. 13. After hearing counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that as none of the appellants had caused grievous injury to the deceased, rather they had caused injury only on non-vital part of the body of the deceased and had not tried to take any benefit of their dominating position, they deserves leniency. Otherwise also, as is apparent from the record and not disputed by both the counsel, parties have entered into a compromise and have decided to live in peace. 14. A settlement, which emerges from the hearts of the individuals will be more lasting as compared to the one which will be enforced by penal provisions of law. Now a days Lok Adalats have become very popular, wherein attempt is being made to settle the matter amicably and maintain the relationships between the parties. In the case in hand also an attempt has been made by the parties to rehabilitate in life, which this court feels is required to be appreciated. One of the appellant had already died during pendency of this appeal and others have already undergone some sentence. Accordingly, keeping in view ratio of the judgments mentioned above and the facts of this case, conviction is upheld, however, sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. With above mentioned modification, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.