Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 701 (PNJ)

Chanan Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-07-14

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - By this judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1988 Chanan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No. 829 of 1988, Pritam Kaur v. Chanan Singh and others, as both are arising out of one and same judgment. At the very outset I may state here that for the last many dates, no body is putting up appearance on behalf of petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 829 of 1988. Order dated 3.12.2003 reflects that notice was issued to one Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for 17.12.2003. As per the office report, notice was duly served upon him. Thereafter also no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on five consecutive dates to assist this Court. Today also no one has come present. These are old appeals and cannot be kept hanging on account of absence of learned counsel. I am, therefore, disposing of both the cases on merits. Chanan Singh son of Udham Singh, Kashmir Singh son of Inder Singh and Gian Singh son of Jit Singh stand convicted under Sections 304 Part-II, 324, 34 Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to undergo the following sentence :- Chanan Singh U/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year U/s 324 Indian Penal Code RI for one year Kashmir Singh U/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year U/s 324 Indian Penal Code RI for one year Gian Singh U/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year U/s 324 Indian Penal Code RI for one year 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 3. It is worth mentioning here that Chanan Singh appellant has since expired. This fact is admitted by the learned State counsel as well. Consequently, the present appeal qua Chanan Singh appellant stands abated. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 3. It is worth mentioning here that Chanan Singh appellant has since expired. This fact is admitted by the learned State counsel as well. Consequently, the present appeal qua Chanan Singh appellant stands abated. 4. Along with aforesaid three appellants, another four accused namely Nirmal Singh, Skattar Singh alias Amarjit Singh, Bali Singh alias Balbir Singh and Dalbir Singh also were booked in this case. They, however, have been acquitted by the trial Court. State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal. 5. The date of occurrence is 16.11.1983 in which Amar Singh had received injuries. He died on 30.11.1983 in the hospital. Initially Ex. DB, the DDR No. 24 dated 19.11.1983 was recorded at the instance of Amar Singh deceased alleging therein that he had received injuries in an accident. Subsequently, after his death, a complaint was filed on 3.1.1984 by Gurmit Singh PW-3 alleging therein that his sister Pritam Kaur was married to Amar Singh (now deceased) of village Chakkoki. Nirmal Singh accused was the son of Chanan Singh accused. Gian Singh accused is the nephew of said Chanan Singh, while Bali Singh accused is the father of Skattar Singh accused and that said Bali Singh accused is the nephew of Chanan Singh accused resident of Prithipur Butala. It is then alleged that Dalbir Singh accused son of Asa Singh also belongs to village Pirthipur Butala and that Kashmira Singh accused belongs to village Chakkoki. It is further alleged that on 16.11.1983, when he (Gurmit Singh) and Amar Singh (now deceased) were cultivating land in village Chakkoki, Kartar Singh son of Lal Singh, Pritam Kaur wife of Amar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh son of Sampuran Singh were also present in the fields. It is further alleged that at about 5 P.M. all the accused came on two tractors which were driven by Dalbir Singh and Gian Singh accused. At that time Bali Singh accused was armed with a .12 bore gun; whereas Chanan Singh and his son Nirmal Singh were armed with a sua each. Kashmira Singh accused was armed with a gandasi and Dalbir Singh accused was armed with a dang whereas, Skatter Singh accused was armed with a kirpan. At that time Bali Singh accused was armed with a .12 bore gun; whereas Chanan Singh and his son Nirmal Singh were armed with a sua each. Kashmira Singh accused was armed with a gandasi and Dalbir Singh accused was armed with a dang whereas, Skatter Singh accused was armed with a kirpan. It is alleged that Bali Singh accused raised a lalkara that Amar Singh and the complainant Gurmit Singh be murdered and possession of the land be taken forcibly. It is alleged that Bali Singh fired shots from his gun and then all the accused excepting Gian Singh alighted from the tractors. Dalbir Singh accused gave dang blow to Amar Singh which hit on his left thigh; whereas Chanan Singh gave a sua blow dangwise to Amar Singh which hit him on his chest. As a result of this injury Amar Singh fell down on the ground. Bali Singh and Gian Singh accused exhorted their co- accused that Amar Singh be done to death after entangling him in the tiller of the tractor. It is alleged that all the accused except Gian Singh lifted Amar Singh and entangled him in the tiller or a tractor and then Gian Singh accused drove that tractor to kill Amar Singh. As a result of this Amar Singh received injuries on his legs and hands. It is then alleged that as a result of the crushing with the tillers of the tractor, which was being driven by Gian Singh accused, Amar Singh received further injuries. This occurrence was witnessed by Kartar Singh, Pritam Kaur, Lakhwinder Singh and on the alarm raised by them, the accused stepped forward towards Gurmit Singh and Kartar Singh. Chanan Singh accused raised a Lalkara that they should also not be spared. On this Kashmira Singh accused gave a gandasi blow to Kartar Singh which hit him on his right forearm. Chanan Singh accused gave two sua blows dandgwise to Kartar Singh, which hit him on his left hand and left side of his head. Nirmal Singh accused allegedly gave two sua blows dangwise to Kartar Singh on the right side of the back and left side of the chest. Skattar Singh accused allegedly gave a Kirpan blow to Gurmit Singh, which hit him on his finger of his right hand. Dalbir Singh accused gave a dang blow which hit him on his chest. Nirmal Singh accused allegedly gave two sua blows dangwise to Kartar Singh on the right side of the back and left side of the chest. Skattar Singh accused allegedly gave a Kirpan blow to Gurmit Singh, which hit him on his finger of his right hand. Dalbir Singh accused gave a dang blow which hit him on his chest. On the alarm raised by the complainant, Pritam Kaur, Kartar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, the accused went away from the spot along with their respective weapons and tractors. Gurmit Singh has further mentioned in the complaint that he reported the matter to the police, but the police did not register any case against the accused. 6. Amar Singh and Gurmit Singh PW, who sustained injuries, were taken to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, where they were medically examined on 16.11.1983, whereas Kartar Singh was medically examined by the doctor at Primary Health Centre, Dhilwan on the same day. Amar Singh died on 30.11.1983. 7. The learned trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence summoned the aforesaid three appellants herein and their other four co-accused. As stated above, Chanan Singh, Kashmir Singh and Gian Singh have earned conviction whereas other four have been acquitted. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record. 9. Mr. Manchanda does not join any issue so far as the merits of the case are concerned and instead has confined his arguments on the point of quantum of sentence only. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel submits that although he is not assailing the impugned judgment on merits but one fact which atleast would assume importance for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence is that appellants Gian Singh and Chanan Singh (since deceased) have also received injuries in this case whereas the case of the complainant is that after Amar Singh was given injuries by Chanan Singh and Dalbir Singh, he was dragged to some distance by Gian Singh appellant as he was driving the tractor. The learned counsel then contends that according to the prosecution case, Kashmir Singh had not caused any injury to the deceased Amar Singh at all and he gave injury to Kartar Singh who has otherwise not been examined in the Court. The learned counsel then contends that according to the prosecution case, Kashmir Singh had not caused any injury to the deceased Amar Singh at all and he gave injury to Kartar Singh who has otherwise not been examined in the Court. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the medical evidence in this regard. The learned counsel then contends that the deceased himself had made a statement Ex. DB before the police stating that he has received injuries in an accident and then a complaint was filed with a delay of about two months. 10. The learned counsel at the same time states that both the appellants have undergone about two months of their actual substantive sentence and keeping in view the totality of facts, they deserve a lenient view in respect of quantum of sentence. 11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel rely upon judgment of this Court rendered in Leela Ram and others v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 119-SB of 1992 decided on 4.2.2004. 12. The learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the appellant does not deserve any leniency with regard to quantum of sentence as they have actively participated in the commission of offence and as such the sentence awarded by the trial Court deserves to be upheld. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that both the appellants deserve a sympathetic tilt so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. As stated above, they have already undergone some period of their substantive sentence. Chanan Singh appellant is already dead. So far as Kashmir Singh appellant is concerned, he has not caused any injury to the deceased. Gian Singh has been given a role of driving a tractor by which Amar Singh since deceased was dragged. Even otherwise he has not caused any direct injury to the deceased. 14. No doubt the impugned judgment has not been assailed on merits but the fact remains that Gian Singh appellant had also received injury as is clear from the statement of Dr. Mohinder Pal Singh PW-1. Even Chanan Singh who has since died has also received certain injuries in this case. Both the appellants by now have faced the agony of long 21 years. Mohinder Pal Singh PW-1. Even Chanan Singh who has since died has also received certain injuries in this case. Both the appellants by now have faced the agony of long 21 years. Kashmir Singh appellant was of the age of 35 years whereas Gian Singh appellant was of the age of 32 years at the time of occurrence. Sending them to jail once again in the present set of circumstances, in my view, would be a harsh step. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Leela Ram and others case (supra) comes to the rescue of the appellants with regard to quantum of sentence. In the aforesaid case while relying upon three judgments of Honble Apex Court rendered in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) SCC 486; Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996(10) SC 372, this Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. However, fine was increased. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court to both the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, I award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased to be paid by the appellants as Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellants are directed to deposit the said amount within three months from today. In the event of deposit of the said amount, the same shall be remitted to Pritam Kaur the wife of deceased Amar Singh. In case she is not alive, then to other LRs of the deceased. In the event of failure of deposit of compensation, the same shall be recovered by the trial Court from the appellants according to law. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as referred to above, Criminal Appeal No. 227-SB of 1988 stands dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 829 of 1988 is with regard to sentence of fine by way of compensation. I have already awarded the compensation to the LRs. of the deceased. Consequently, the present revision petition is also disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.