Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1510 (PNJ)

Lugga Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-08-21

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment 1. The present appeal has arisen from judgment/order of sentence dated 2-4-1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot (hereinafter described as the trial Court) by which Lugga Singh and Gurjant Singh alias Gora Singh (appellants) have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Lugga Singh For offence under Section 307 of the IPC : to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Gurjant Singh alias Gora Singh For offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC :- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2 On 22-5-1994 at about 8.00 p.m. Kulwant Singh (complainant) was injured when the appellants attacked him. Appellant-Lugga Singh is said to have given a gandasi blow on the head of the complainant, as a result of which the following injury was suffered by the latter :- "An incised wound 14 cm x 1-1/2 cm x bone deep on the right side of head and forehead. Wound was longitudinal antero-posterior. Wound commenced from the upper part of forehead 4-1/2 cm above the right eye brow and 4 cm right of midline and terminated posteriorly on the parietal region of head 9 cms above the upper border of the pinna of right ear. Fresh bleeding was present, X-ray was advised." 3. The reason for the altercation was that both the appellants, who are labourers, objected to the complainant for working at a lesser rate for harvesting the sun-flour crop in the village. 4. The police investigated the matter and the appellants were challaned as a prima facie case under Section 307/34 of the IPC was said to be made out against them. 5. The trial Court accordingly charged the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as four witnesses including the complainant and Dr. J. R. Bansal, who had medico-legally examined him. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. the appellants alleged that they have been falsely implicated. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as four witnesses including the complainant and Dr. J. R. Bansal, who had medico-legally examined him. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. the appellants alleged that they have been falsely implicated. They also stated that their mother had contested the panchayat election against Mohan Singh, who is real uncle of the complainant and that some unknown person might have caused injury to him for which they have been roped in. In support of their plea, they examined Shinder Singh DW1, who stated that he was sitting in his house when he heard the cries, but he did not witness the occurrence. He also stated that the complainant was lifted by his father and taken to their house. 8. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner noticed hereinabove. 9. While assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the plea of defence which was taken by the appellants and contended that the occurrence had taken place at 8.00 p.m. and the prosecution had failed to prove that there was sufficient light at the spot and on account thereof, the identity of the appellants cannot be said to have been established beyond doubt. This coupled with the fact that there was rivalry in the village as explained by them in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. show that the appellants have been falsely implicated. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the complainant, who was injured, got his statement recorded promptly at about 12.00 p.m. while the incident took place at 8.00 p.m. He had reached the hospital at about 11.00 p.m. There was, thus, no room for manipulations and the reason which has been given by the appellants for false implication has also not been established by any evidence on record. In view of this, it was contended that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court was perfectly in order. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of false implication is not borne out from any evidence on record. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of false implication is not borne out from any evidence on record. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the statement of the injured was recorded promptly within four hours duration of the incident. That apart, since the parties are known to each other, there cannot be a case of mistaken identity, especially when the incident is said to have taken place in the village chowk and not in the extreme darkness as has been shown to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellants. The motive for false implication has also not been established even though the plea was taken up by the appellants in their defence. Consequently, in the absence of any supportive evidence qua the plea taken by the appellants, the same is rejected. 13. In the opinion of this Court, there was hardly any material to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants made a two-fold prayer, one that there is no role attributed to appellant Gurjant Singh and he has been convicted only with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC and that no injury has been attributed to him and his presence on the spot is also doubtful and secondly, considering the fact that the incident was the result of a trivial dispute, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to custody, especially when the incident is of the year 1994 and that they have faced the agony of prosecution for the last 13 years. 15. I have considered this aspect carefully and am of the opinion that there is hardly any evidence regarding appellant-Gurjat Singh. He is said to be the brother of appellant Lugga Singh, whose identity in the incident was clearly established by the injured. The only role attributed to Gurjant Singh is that he had enquired from the complainant about the daily rate being charged by him for harvesting the sun-flower crop upon which the complainant is said to have replied that he being a poor man cannot question the wages being given to him. The only role attributed to Gurjant Singh is that he had enquired from the complainant about the daily rate being charged by him for harvesting the sun-flower crop upon which the complainant is said to have replied that he being a poor man cannot question the wages being given to him. Upon this, appellant-Lugga Singh, who was enraged, is said to have given the solitary gandasi blow on the head of the injured. 16. There is no evidence to suggest that Gurjant Singh and Lugga Singh were having any premeditated intention to carry out the crime. In this view of the matter, the conviction of appellant-Gurjant Singh cannot be sustained and he is ordered to be acquitted. 17. In so far as appellant-Lugga Singh is concerned, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1994 and that he was aged about 22-23 years at the time of occurrence and the fact that almost 13 years have gone by and that by now, he would be well advanced in years, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that of already undergone, provided he deposits a sum of Rs. 15000/- before the trial Court within a period of three months, which shall be disbursed to the complainant after due notice to him. Ordered accordingly. It is also directed that in the event of his failure to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the sentence of the appellant shall stand revived and in that eventuality, his bail bonds shall be cancelled. 18. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment/order of sentence, the appeal is disposed of.