Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 784 (PNJ)

Satgur Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-07-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide this judgment, I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 702-SB of 1995, Satgur Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No. 493 of 1996 Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others, as both are arising out of one and the same judgment dated 18.10.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under :- Satgur Singh under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. Pargat Singh under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. Bahadur Singh under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, they have preferred the present appeal. 3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellants states that Satgur Singh and Pargat Singh appellants have since expired. He placed on record death certificates of the aforesaid two appellants. The learned counsel further states that even Sukhdev Singh complainant has also expired. The learned State counsel does not dispute this fact. Consequently, the present appeal qua Satgur Singh and Pargat Singh abates. 4. Sukhdev Singh is the injured in this case who had allegedly received injuries at the hands of the aforesaid three appellants. Satgur Singh (since dead) was charged substantively under Section 307 Indian Penal Code whereas Pargat Singh and Bahadur Singh were charged under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. 5. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 13.8.1993 at about 9.00 P.M., Sukhdev Singh injured was going to feed water to his paddy crops and when he had just come out of the village, appellant Pargat Singh, who had come from Dhuri side on bicycle, struck against bicycle of Sukhdev Singh. This resulted in exchange of hot words and Sukhdev Singh went to his electric motor in the fields. This resulted in exchange of hot words and Sukhdev Singh went to his electric motor in the fields. Jangir Singh, brother of Sukhdev Singh, who had his another electric motor in his fields nearby, came and both Sukhdev Singh and Jangir Singh started talking with each other when at about 10.30 P.M. appellants Satgur Singh, Pargat Singh armed with Gandasas and Bahadur Singh armed with Gandhali came there. It is alleged that on hearing lalkara raised by Bahadur Singh that Sukhdev Singh should not be spared, Jangir Singh left the place out of fear and concealed himself behind small water storing tank (Jhabacha). It is alleged that Pargat Singh gave Gandasa blow causing injuries on right arm, left hand and back side of head of Sukhdev Singh; whereas Satgur Singh gave gandasa blow causing injuries on the head and nose of complainant and Bahadur Singh gave Gandhali blow on left arm, chest and right upper leg of Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh picked up a spade lying nearby and he used the same to save his person and in the process gave injuries to the accused party, who ran away with their respective weapons. 6. The defence set up by the appellant as emerges from their statements is that on 13.8.1993 at about 8.30 P.M., Sukhdev Singh armed with gandasa, Bhinder Singh and Tika Singh armed with Sotis caused injuries to Pargat Singh after abusing him and that Pargat Singh had also filed a complaint in this regard. 7. I have heard Mr. Jasdev Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has prayed for showing lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence qua Bahadur Singh who had allegedly caused simple injury to Sukhdev Singh. Developing his arguments, the learned counsel submits that in this occurrence Pargat Singh (since dead) and Bahadur Singh had also received as many as 8 injuries. He has drawn my attention to the impugned judgment where injuries on the person of Pargat Singh and Bahadur Singh are described. He then contends that the present occurrence relates to the year 1993 and by now the appellant has faced the agony of protracted trial of 11 years. He has drawn my attention to the impugned judgment where injuries on the person of Pargat Singh and Bahadur Singh are described. He then contends that the present occurrence relates to the year 1993 and by now the appellant has faced the agony of protracted trial of 11 years. Further contends that appellant Bahadur Singh was of the age of 30 years and by now he is well settled in his family life. 9. The learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and contends that Bahadur Singh does not deserve any sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence as he along with his two brothers who are since dead has caused many injuries on the person of Sukhdev Singh and consequently, out of which injury No. 6 which was on his head had attracted Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Then contends, that the appellant Bahadur Singh had joined hands with his two co- accused for making an assault on Sukhdev Singh and as such he does not deserve any concession with regard to quantum of sentence. 10. Although the impugned judgment is not assailed on merits by the learned counsel for the appellants, yet I have rescanned the entire evidence minutely. I do not find any lacuna in the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is reaffirmed. 11. However, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to quantum of sentence qua Bahadur Singh. Admittedly, Satgur Singh and Pargat Singh appellants are already dead. Bahadur Singh as per the prosecution case had given simple injuries to Sukhdev Singh. Admittedly he had also received injuries in this case along with Pargat Singh as is clear from the medical evidence. He has already faced the agony of protracted trial of 11 years. Sending the appellant Bahadur Singh to Jail once again at this juncture, in my view, would be a hard step. It has also been brought to my notice that appellant Bahadur Singh remained in custody for three months during the trial and was subsequently released on bail under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code as the challan was not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. It has also been brought to my notice that appellant Bahadur Singh remained in custody for three months during the trial and was subsequently released on bail under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code as the challan was not filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the bar that after the conviction the appellant Bahadur Singh remained in custody for another two months as his sentence is suspended by this court in December, 1995. This period comes to five months. In my considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by appellant Bahadur Singh while keeping the sentences of fine as it is. So ordered. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 702-SB of 1995 stands dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 493 of 1996 is also disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.