Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1657 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-12

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 699-SB of 2005 and Criminal Revision No. 1480 of 2005. 2. The appeal arises from the judgment dated 31.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur vide which out of four accused, Gurbux Singh was acquitted whereas the remaining three accused/appellants namely Rajinder Singh, Har Bhagwan Singh and Kabal Singh were convicted under Sections 307, 186, 353, 341, 332 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as under :- Name of the accused Offence Sentence 1. Rajinder Singh 307 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- 186 3 months and a fine of Rs. 200/- 353 1 year and a fine of Rs. 500/- 341 one month 332 1-1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- 27 Arms Act 3 years and a fine of Rs. 700/- 2. Har Bhagwan Singh @ Harprit Singh and Kabal Singh 307/34 5 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. 3 The case as unfolded by the prosecution is that Jagir Singh Junior Engineer posted at PSEB, Mamdot, village Chak Roa Ke Hithar falls within the jurisdiction of Mamdot. Due to the paucity of the electricity in the area, Jagir Singh informed the villagers that the electricity could be supplied to them at single phase if they stop operating their electric motors from the area, however, in the beginning, they stopped operating the electric motors but again on receipt of the complaint regarding operating of the motors by the accused, injured PW-2 Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer, went to the fields and removed the capacitors and starters of the electric motors belonging to the accused. At this, Rajinder Singh along with Har Bhagwan Singh followed Jagir Singh and the complainant Bohar Singh who were also on their motor cycle. Similarly Kabal Singh son of Rajinder Singh and one Gurbux Singh also followed the car. Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh intercepted the motor cycle of Jagir Singh by bringing their motor cycle in front of it. Similarly, Kabal Singh stopped his car at the back of the motor cycle. Gurbux Singh exhorted Rajinder Singh to catch Jagir Singh and shoot him as he was preventing them from operating their electric motors. Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh intercepted the motor cycle of Jagir Singh by bringing their motor cycle in front of it. Similarly, Kabal Singh stopped his car at the back of the motor cycle. Gurbux Singh exhorted Rajinder Singh to catch Jagir Singh and shoot him as he was preventing them from operating their electric motors. At this, Rajinder Singh fired a shot on the right side of his chest, internal portion of his arm and on upper right side on his shoulder of Jagir Singh. One pellet of the said shot hit the complainant in his left thigh. The hue and cry attracted may people resultantly the accused fled away from the spot. 4. Since Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer was preventing the accused from operating the electric motors from the single phase power supply and had removed the capacitors and starters of the electric motors as they were not obeying the orders, therefore, they had grudge against Jagir Singh and caused injuries to him. The occurrence took place on 17.7.2004 at 10 p.m. The police reached the hospital at 8.40 a.m. and recorded the statement of Bohar Singh complainant Ex. P-1 at 12.20 p.m. and FIR Ex. P-28 was registered at 1.25 a.m. It reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 4.20 p.m. Investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. MLRs of the injured were collected. Site plan was prepared. Accused were arrested and on completion of formalities, the challan against them was presented in the Court. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Bohar Singh, PW-2 JE Jagir Singh. PW-3 Dr. Gian Singh, PW-4 Pala Singh lineman, PW-5 Dr. Renu Singla, PW-6 Inspector Manminder Singh, PW-7 Naresh Kumar clerk, D.C. Office, Ferozepur, PW-8 Ravinder Singh clerk DTO Office, Ferozepur, PW-9 Gurdeep Singh Revenue Patwari circle Gatti Mattar, PW-10 HC Harpal Singh of P.S. Mamdot, PW-11 Dr. Kanishka William, PW-12 MHC Gurmit Singh, PW-13 HC Harjit Singh, PW-14 Dr. Nooreyezdan Shahin, PW-15 ASI Rakesh Kumar and closed the evidence after tendering Chemical Examiner report Ex. P-46. 6. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Rajinder Singh further pleaded that he had obtained the electricity connection from PSEB. JE Jagir Singh used to demand bribe from him, when he refused to oblige him. P-46. 6. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Rajinder Singh further pleaded that he had obtained the electricity connection from PSEB. JE Jagir Singh used to demand bribe from him, when he refused to oblige him. On 17.7.2004, he was alone in his house. At about 9 p.m. he heard the cries from the near by farm house that some dacoits had entered in the village for the purpose of dacoity. Firing was started by the people. Some unknown persons knocked at his door also. Consequently, he also fired in the air in the said process. Neither he visited the spot nor fired any shot there. Bohar Singh complainant and Jagir Singh have been collecting illegal gratification from the villagers for unauthorised running of the electric motors and involved them falsely. Accused Har Bhagwan and Kabal Singh further explained that on the date of occurrence, they were present in their houses with their families and did not visit the alleged place of occurrence. They have been involved in the case on account of dispute of Bohar Singh with his father Rajinder Singh. Gurbux Singh also pleaded his false implication in the case. 7. Ultimately the trial entered (ended ?) in acquittal of Gurbux Singh and conviction of the other three accused persons. Hence, this appeal. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. At the very outset counsel for the appellants has not assailed the conviction of Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh but has urged that Kabal Singh has been falsely implicated in this case. On examination of records, it transpires that the story set up by the prosecution has been duly proved by Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer PW-2 and his testimony is supported by PW-1 Bohar Singh. Both are the injured witnesses. Both suffered injuries at the hands of Rajinder Singh who fired shot with his gun hitting the right arm, right flank, right lateral part of the chest. Resultantly, the right arm of Jagir Singh complainant was amputated. Bohar Singh who was the pillion rider also suffered injuries out of the pellets from the fired shot by Rajinder Singh. PW-3 Dr. Both suffered injuries at the hands of Rajinder Singh who fired shot with his gun hitting the right arm, right flank, right lateral part of the chest. Resultantly, the right arm of Jagir Singh complainant was amputated. Bohar Singh who was the pillion rider also suffered injuries out of the pellets from the fired shot by Rajinder Singh. PW-3 Dr. Gian Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur who medico-legally examined Jagir Singh on 18.7.2004, observed the following injuries on his person :- "1-A lacerated punctured wound 3.5 cms x 2.75 cms on the right lateral part of lower part of chest. Bleeding was present freshly. Depth was not inverted margins. 2. A lacerated wound 8 cms x 6 cms on the inner side of upper part of right forearm. Bleeding was present freshly. Margins were inverted. Underlying bone shattered and profuse bleeding was present. 3."A lacerated wound 14 cms x 9 cms on the outer side of upper part of right forearm. Bleeding was present freshly. Margins were Everett. Underlying bones shattered and profuse bleeding was present from the wound." He also examined Bohar Singh and observed the following injuries on his person : "A lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the left thigh front and middle part of left thigh. Bleeding was present freshly with a lacerated wound 2.5 cms x .25 cm on the upper side of wound. Inverted margins." Positive and consistent evidence of PW-1 Bohar Singh, PW-2 Jagir Singh is supported by the medical evidence coming from the mouth of PW-3 Dr. Gian Singh. The testimony of PW-4 Pall Singh who deposes that the accused Rajinder Singh was arrested and the gun was recovered from him lends further corroboration to the prosecution version. Thus, the prosecution story stands fully established. 9 Now coming to the participation of Kabal Singh, it may be observed that the facts and circumstances as brought forward by the prosecution reveal that both the accused came in groups. Accused Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh were on motor cycle whereas Gurbux Singh and Kabal Singh were in a car. FIR does not disclose if Kabal Singh was armed with any kirpan. But the story of carrying kirpan by Kabal Singh is an improvement. The evidence further reveals that Kabal Singh did not cause any injury with kirpan to any other injured. FIR does not disclose if Kabal Singh was armed with any kirpan. But the story of carrying kirpan by Kabal Singh is an improvement. The evidence further reveals that Kabal Singh did not cause any injury with kirpan to any other injured. Under the circumstances, it could be safely concluded that though Kabal Singh had appeared at the scene with Gurbux Singh in his car and surrounded the injured by stopping the car behind them but he cannot be said to have any common intention with the accused Rajinder Singh to cause fatal injuries as dangerous to life to the injured Jagir Singh and simple injuries to Bohar Singh. At the same time since he also deterred the public servants from performing their duties, could be convicted under Sections 353, 186, 341, 332 IPC. As regards the argument that since Har Bhagwan did not also cause any injury to JE Jagir Singh, therefore, he should also not be convicted under Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC but this argument does not weigh with me as both the accused followed the injured on the motor cycle after the injured Jagir Singh and Bohar Singh had taken the capacitors and starters of their electric motors. It was Har Bhagwan who drove the motor cycle to the place of occurrence knowing well that Rajinder Singh was equipped with a deadly weapon like gun and he stopped the injured by parking his motor cycle in front of the motor cycle by Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer. Had Har Bhagwan not taken Rajinder Singh, the occurrence would not have taken place, therefore, Har Bhagwan Singh can be said to have shared the common intention with Rajinder Singh in causing fire arm injury to Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer and Bohar Singh. 10. Now coming to the quantum of sentence. So far as Kabal Singh is concerned, he is in his young age. He has a long career to hold. No bad antecedents has been brought forward by the Deputy Advocate General, so as to deny him the benefit of probation. Accordingly, by extending him benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 he is released on probation on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. He has a long career to hold. No bad antecedents has been brought forward by the Deputy Advocate General, so as to deny him the benefit of probation. Accordingly, by extending him benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 he is released on probation on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. 11. As regards the sentence awarded by the trial Court qua Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh, it may be observed that as a result of gun shot injuries received by the injured at the hands of Rajinder Singh in connivance with Har Bhagwan Singh accused, Jagir Singh, Junior Engineer lost his arm and his life is rendered as half dead. As such to extend them some leniency on the quantum of sentence would be travesty of justice. Resultantly, I hereby partly accept the appeal and acquit the accused Kabal Singh under Section 307 IPC and while upholding his conviction for the remaining offences, release him on probation in the aforesaid items. 12. Whereas the appeal preferred by Rajinder Singh and Har Bhagwan Singh is dismissed. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1480 of 2005 stands dismissed. Order accordingly.