Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1659 (PNJ)

Angrez Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-09-12

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. On 22.10.1995, the appellant along with Sikandar alias Babu attacked PW3-Jito wife of Gulzari - complainant and caused serious injuries to her person, the details of which are as below :- "1. A lacerated wound on frontal region of scalp approximately in mid-line, 8 x 3 x scalp deep, clotted blood was present in the wound, wound bled on cleaning. X-ray skull was advised. 2. A lacerated wound on crown on scalp; 5 cm posterior to No. 1 approximately in middle, 5 cm x 2 cm x scalp deep, clotted blood was present in the wound, wound bled on cleaning. X-ray was advised. 3. A lacerated wound on middle of left ear, starting from front and extending on to back on mastoid region, horizontal, clotted blood was present, wound bled on cleaning. 4. A lacerated wound on chin, approximately in midline vertical 4.5 cm. x .7 x skin deep, clotted blood was present, wound bled on cleaning." 2. The F.I.R. was registered on the next day, i.e., on 23.10.1995 at 2.00 P.M. 3. The police investigated the matter and submitted a challan against the appellant and his accomplice under the provisions of Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 of the T.P.C. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala (hereinafter described as the trial Court) accordingly charge-sheeted the appellant and his co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses including PW1-Dr. Subhash Chander; PW2-Dr. S.P. Surila; PW8-Dr. Satbir Singh; PW9-Dr. Surjit Singh Mahi and PW10-Dr. Baldev Singh, who either medico-legally examined/treated the injured or opined about her condition. 6. It is necessary to note here that Sikandar Singh alias Babu, co-accused of the appellant, absconded during the pendency of the trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender. 7. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. He also examined Fajja son of Waswa of his village as DW1. This witness did not state anything about the incident in question. 8. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences alleged against him. He also examined Fajja son of Waswa of his village as DW1. This witness did not state anything about the incident in question. 8. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences alleged against him. It accordingly convicted and sentenced him as under : For offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. For offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 9. The afore-stated conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant vide the trial Courts judgment dated 6.5.2002 have been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the injuries and considering the fact that there is no fracture caused, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. cannot be maintained and at best, he could be convicted under Section 323 of the I.P.C. It was alternatively contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case, this Court does not accept the contention so raised by him, then in that eventuality, considering the fact that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of occurrence and also the fact that he has faced criminal prosecution for a long period and also the fact that there is no history of his criminality, he be dealt with leniently. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is perfectly in order as the appellant had caused a number of injuries including the one given on the head of the injured, which were serious and declared to be dangerous to life by PW9-Dr. Surjit Singh Mahi. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. Concededly, there is no denial to the incident and the injuries caused to the person of injured-Jito have also not been denied. Surjit Singh Mahi. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 13. Concededly, there is no denial to the incident and the injuries caused to the person of injured-Jito have also not been denied. Resultantly, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant had, indeed, caused the aforementioned injuries in the backdrop of some simmering dispute between him and the complainant. 14. The question that is to be determined is as to whether it can be accepted that in the absence of any fracture resulting from the injuries, the offence under section 347 of the I.P.C. is made out or not. 15. There can be no generalization of the proposition which has been sought to be propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has to be inferred from the facts of each and every case keeping in view the pre-meditative intent, seat of injuries and the effect thereof. 16. Examining the incident from this perspective, it becomes clear that the appellant had caused injuries without any apparent provocation and the fact that he was armed with a spade and his co-accused was armed with an iron sariya coupled with the number of blows inflicted upon the injured reveals both the pre-meditative intent and brutality of the action. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is accordingly rejected. 18. So far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, I have given an anxious thought to it. The appellant had given his aged 23 years on 22.3.2002 when his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The occurrence took place on 22.10.1995. Thus, he was of tender age at the time of incident. He has also faced the brunt of prosecution proceedings for the last about twelve years. By now, he would be well advanced in age and probably well entrenched in life. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, he has already undergone more than two years of imprisonment out of the total substantive sentence awarded to him. 19. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that a lenient view in the matter sentence deserves to be taken. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, he has already undergone more than two years of imprisonment out of the total substantive sentence awarded to him. 19. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that a lenient view in the matter sentence deserves to be taken. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms :- (1) The conviction as recorded by the trial Court shall remain intact. (2) The sentence imposed upon the appellant for both the offences will stand reduced to that of already undergone, provided he deposits with the trial Court, within three months from today, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid to the injured-Jito. This amount will be in addition to the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court. (3) In case, the appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the sentence imposed by the trial Court shall get revived and in that eventuality, his bail bonds will be cancelled. (4) On deposit of the amount as directed above, the same will be disbursed to the injured-Jito after due enquiry and verification.