Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 32 (PNJ)

Gurdial Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-01-04

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment/order dated 17.8.1999 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby accused appellants were convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC read with Section 34 and also 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo RI for eight years under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for six months each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each. 2. The prosecution case against the accused/appellants was that on 21.5.1990 Gurdial Singh and his sons Tej Singh and Sarabjit Singh had tied harrow of Labh Singh with their tractor and were ploughing their fields. When Labh Singh demanded his harrow back, then accused objected but ultimately gave the harrow. Then at about 5.30/5.45 p.m. on that very day when Labh Singh and his brother Sahib Singh had gone to their outer house and were putting dry fodder to their buffaloes and when his brother Sahib Singh was standing nearby in the courtyard of the outer house, then all the accused came at the top of their house adjoining outer house of Labh Singh. They started abusing them. Then Gurdial Singh shouted that a lesson should be taught for getting back the harrow. Gurdial Singh then threw brick-bats after uprooting the same from the parapet of his roof and threw the same towards Labh Singh hitting on his right foot and left thigh. Tej Singh also threw a brick-bat towards Sahib Singh hitting him on his head. Sahib Singh became unconscious. Other accused Sarabjit Singh also threw bricks towards Sahib Singh, due to which he received injuries on the head and other parts of the body. In the meantime, Gurbux Singh and Sukhdev Singh had arrived who had witnessed the occurrence. Then accused ran away. Sahib Singh was taken to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala where he was got admitted in the Emergency Ward. There Sahib Singh died. Labh Singh made statement to the police. The case was registered under Section 304/34 IPC. The case was investigated. all the three accused/appellants namely Gurdial Singh, Karamjit Singh alias Sarabjit, and Tej Singh were sent for trial. Case against Gurdial Singh and Tej Singh was found to be proved. There Sahib Singh died. Labh Singh made statement to the police. The case was registered under Section 304/34 IPC. The case was investigated. all the three accused/appellants namely Gurdial Singh, Karamjit Singh alias Sarabjit, and Tej Singh were sent for trial. Case against Gurdial Singh and Tej Singh was found to be proved. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid whereas Karamjit Singh alias Sarabjit Singh was acquitted. 3. Counsel for the appellants had argued that there was only one brick- bat blow on the head of deceased Sahib Singh stated to have given by Tej Singh. He pointed out that the accused had been convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. It was urged that Section 34 IPC could not apply to Gurdial Singh who had no intention of causing death of Sahib Singh. It was argued that there is no case for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34 IPC and each accused shall be guilty for his individual act. Judgment of this Court reported in Azad Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 848 (P&H) has been relied. 4. On behalf of the State, a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, 1983(1) RCR(Criminal) 80 : 1983 Crl.L.J. 229 had been relied, in which it had been held that in case of conviction for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC conviction of other accused for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC would be proper, which would mean that in such cases Section 34 will be applicable. In another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sukhpal v. State of M.P., 1997 SC Cases (Criminal) 769 also, conviction for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and Section 149 IPC had been upheld. 5. In the present case, Gurbax Singh PW-5 stated that Gurdial Singh, Gurtej Singh and Karamjit Singh were abusing Labh Singh and Sahib Singh from top of their house. Then he heard Gurdial Singh saying to his sons that as to what they were waiting and they should teach a lesson to Labh Singh and Sahib Singh for demanding their harrow. After saying this, Gurdial Singh had uprooted bricks and threw towards Labh Singh hitting him on the right ankle and left thigh. Then he heard Gurdial Singh saying to his sons that as to what they were waiting and they should teach a lesson to Labh Singh and Sahib Singh for demanding their harrow. After saying this, Gurdial Singh had uprooted bricks and threw towards Labh Singh hitting him on the right ankle and left thigh. Thereafter, Gurtej Singh lifted a brick and hurled towards Sahib Singh hitting him on his head. Sahib Singh fell down on the ground. Sahib Singh had became unconscious and died later. 6. Same is the statement of Labh Singh PW-6 who had also received injuries also during occurrence. His injuries were proved by Dr. Rajinder Singh whereas Dr. Gurdial Singh, Medical Officer PW-2 who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sahib Singh had found both the injuries on Sahib Singh on the head and had further stated that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. As such, Tej Singh was liable for 304 Part II IPC and Gurdial Singh accused was liable for offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC, whereas both the accused shall also be liable for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 8. No other point was raised by counsel for the appellants but he had prayed that lenient view be taken. 9. In this case, the accused were not armed with any weapon. They did not bring brick-bats and had just uprooted the bricks from parapet and thrown. Appellants have already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years. Occurrence had taken place more than 15 years back and appellants had faced trial for about nine years till the date of conviction i.e. 17.8.1999 and have suffered quite enough. 10. From the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal as far as conviction is concerned. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that only brick-bat blow was given on the head of the deceased and the heirs of deceased Sahib Singh should be compensated with compensation, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to already undergone whereas sentence of fine of each of the appellants i.e. namely Gurdial Singh and Tej Singh alias Gurtej Singh is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- each. Accused appellants making default in payment of fine, shall undergo RI for two years. 25,000/- each. Accused appellants making default in payment of fine, shall undergo RI for two years. The fine be deposited in the successor Court of Shri B.C. Rajput, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala within a period of three months from today. Out of the fine, if realized, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the heirs of Sahib Singh as compensation. 11. Subject to above modification, this appeal fails and is dismissed.