Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 431 (PNJ)

Ramesh Chander v. State Of Haryana

2005-03-23

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which the accused appellants Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumer were convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Section 324 IPC, while Sant Ram-accused appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Section 307/324 IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.3.1994, the accused appellants alongwith their other companions constituted unlawful assembly and caused injuries to Sucha Singh, Suraj Mal and Shakuntla by means of jailis, pharsa, gandasas and lathis. The case was registered on the statement of Suraj Mal. The investigation was completed and the accused were sent up for trial. 3. Charges under Sections 148, 307/149, 324/149, IPC, were framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dharampal as PW-1, ASI Ram Chander as PW-2, Dr. Siri Kumar, PGI, Chandigarh as PW-3, Suraj Mal (complainant) as PW-4 (as PW-6 also), Dr. Rajiv Sharma as PW-5, SI Ram Chander as PW-7, Sucha Singh (injured) as PW-8, Shakuntala (injured) as PW-9, Tirlok Chand as PW-10, HC Ved Singh as PW-11, SI Ram Chander as PW-12, ASI Hari Singh as PW-13, HC Om Pal as PW-14 and Dr. Raj Kumar as PW-15. The prosecution closed its evidence. 5. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the three accused-appellants claimed to be innocent and took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. In defence, they examined, Dr. A.P. Sharma as DW-1 to prove injuries on the person of Ramesh Chander, Roshni Devi and Gulab Singh on the accused side. 7. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the companions of the accused-appellants of all the charges framed against them. However, Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar-accused appellants were convicted for having committed offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, while Sant Ram - accused appellant was convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307/324 IPC, vide judgment dated 11.11.1997. 8. Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years besides the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 8. Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years besides the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Sant Ram-accused appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years besides the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. He was also sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment besides the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount, some amount was ordered to be paid to Sucha Singh and Suraj Mal, injured. 9. Hence, the present appeal. 10. Suraj Mal PW-4 is the injured and informant of the case to the police. He has made a sworn statement in which the accused-appellants are specifically named for causing injuries to him and to Sucha Singh. His statement is corroborated by Sucha Singh PW-8. Both are the injured and, therefore, their presence at the spot is proved beyond doubt. 11. Sucha Singh has also attributed specific injuries to Sant Ram, Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar-accused appellants. Their statements are conclusive about the role played by each of the accused-appellants. Therefore, there is no scope for doubt in their statements. Shakuntala PW-9 has also corroborated the prosecution version. 12. The occurrence had taken place on 13.3.1994 and the matter was reported to the police without delay. This also lends credence to the prosecution case. 13. Motive is also proved by Suraj Mal PW-4 and Sucha Singh PW-8 that a fight between the children of the two families had taken place one day earlier i.e. 12.3.1994 for which the accused attacked them. 14. I have gone through the statements of Suraj Mal PW-4 (also examined as PW-6), Sucha Singh PW-8 and Shakuntala PW-9). They are categorical about the offences committed by the accused-appellants. Therefore, the conviction of Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar-accused appellants under Section 324 IPC, so also the conviction of Sant Ram accused appellant under Sections 307 and 324 IPC are upheld. 15. They are categorical about the offences committed by the accused-appellants. Therefore, the conviction of Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar-accused appellants under Section 324 IPC, so also the conviction of Sant Ram accused appellant under Sections 307 and 324 IPC are upheld. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants was that Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar had undergone more than two months imprisonment each. Sant Ram had undergone more than 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. Hence, it was prayed that the accused-appellants be sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them. 16. It was opposed by Sh. N.S. Bhinder, learned District Attorney, for the State of Haryana on the plea that the nature of injuries caused by Sant Ram on the person of Sucha Singh was very grave. Reference was made to the statement of Dr. Rajiv Sharma, PW-5. Hence, it was submitted that Sant Ram be re- arrested and be asked to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. 17. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has drawn my attention to the statement of Dr. Raj Kumar, PW-15, who has stated that injuries of Sucha Singh were treated medically and he was discharged from the hospital on 4.4.1994 after giving total treatment. Therefore, the injury on the person of Sucha Singh should not be an impediment for sentencing Sant Ram to imprisonment already undergone by him. 18. Since the occurrence had taken place on 13.3.1994 and the accused- appellants were sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.11.1997 i.e. after about 3 years, while the appeal is pending in this Court for the last more than 7 years. Moreover, the parties are stated to be neighbours and they have entered into a compromise on 11.6.2003 and they want to live peacefully. If they are called upon to undergo the remaining part of their sentence, the old wounds will re-erupt which will disturb peace in the locality. 19. Keeping in view the facts stated above, the accused-appellants are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them. 20. However, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants the District Attorney, the accused-appellants have not deposited the amount of fine. 19. Keeping in view the facts stated above, the accused-appellants are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by them. 20. However, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants the District Attorney, the accused-appellants have not deposited the amount of fine. Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar should deposit the amount of fine within a period of three months from today, if the fine amount is not already deposited, failing which they will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. So far as Sant Ram is concerned, since he was convicted under Section 307 IPC for having caused injury which was dangerous to life on the person of Sucha Singh, therefore, his fine amount in all is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, which he will pay within a period of 3 months from today, failing which he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Out of the fine amount deposited by Sant Ram, Rs. 25,000/- shall go to Sucha Singh-injured. While out of the fine amount deposited by Ramesh Chander and Naresh Kumar, Rs. 7,000/- shall go to Suraj Mal-injured. The appeal stands partly allowed in the terms stated above.