Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1664 (PNJ)

Shubh Karan v. State Of Haryana

2007-09-13

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. The two appeals and one revision petition are being disposed of by this common order. 2. On 19.6.2000, an incident is said to have taken place in which the appellants are said to have caused injuries to two persons namely Dalwinder Singh and Rajinder Singh. The details of the injuries sustained by Rajinder Singh, which were subsequently established by way of medical evidence and the testimony of PW-2 Dr. Jagir Mal are as follows :- "1. There was an incised wound on the left side of the scalp, size was 15x3 cms. There was profused bleeding from the wound, Margins were smooth. He was unconscious and there was vomitting and there were fits after the injury. X- ray of the Skull was advised. 2. There was one/incised wound on the scalp on the middle and extended to the occipital area and size was 14x2.5 cms. There was profused bleeding from the wound and X-ray of the skull was advised. 3. There was one lacerated wound on right side of the frontal area of the scalp and the size was 6x3.5 cms and margins were irregular. X-ray of the scalp was advised. 4. There was one lacerated wound on the right lower leg on the frontal area. The size was 5x3 cms. There was bleeding and advised the X-ray of right lower leg." 3. The FIR was lodged on the very same day and the police investigated the matter. Initially five persons namely Shubh Karan, Madan Lal, Satish Kumar, Gurdial Singh and Jatinder Pal were arrayed as accused in this case. Jatinder Pal who was stated to be a juvenile was tried separately. 4. The police after investigation of the case submitted a challan against the accused persons prima facie finding their involvement in the commission of an offences under Sections 307/147/323/341/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The trial Court charged all the accused persons appeared before it under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Penal Code, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the case against the accused persons examined as many as 17 witnesses, which included the medical evidence and the testimony of the doctor who had examined and treated the injured persons. 7. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the case against the accused persons examined as many as 17 witnesses, which included the medical evidence and the testimony of the doctor who had examined and treated the injured persons. 7. In their statements, recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants pleaded false implication on account of previous enmity and it was further pleaded by one appellant Shubh Karan that Gurdial Singh, co-accused, who is his brother was attacked by the complainant on 19.6.2000 at about 7.30/8 a.m. and was caused injuries and a DDR had been recorded regarding the said incident. In the interregnum some incident probably an accident had taken place resulting injuries to the appellants, which has now been converted into the incident of assault. 8. In support of their defence version, they examined Dr. Jaya Jaithli who had examined Gurdial Singh son of Jamna Ram upon him the following injuries were found :- "1. Abrasion 1x1 cm. on head, nature of injury simple, kind of weapon used blunt, duration of injury more than 12 hours. 2. Bruise 10x2.5 cm. Nature of the injury simple, kind of weapon blunt duration of injury more than 12 hours. 3.A very small needle tip size wound on the tip of ring finger of left hand. 4. Abrasion of right shoulder 5x4 cm. Injury No. 3 & simple kind of weapon blunt, duration injury more than 12 hours. 9. They further examined Rajbir Ahlmad from the Criminal Court as DW-2, who stated that the said complaint was lodged by Gurdial Singh on 23.3.2001. 10. Ramanand DW-3 testified that there was some enmity between co-villagers regarding which incident has taken place earlier also. 11. Similarly Amar Nath DW-4 also testified to the factionalism and rivalry in the village in which both the parties were involved. 12. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of having committed an offence u/s 307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of fine to undergo further RI for one month, under Section 307/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 13. 500/- each and in default of fine to undergo further RI for one month, under Section 307/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 13. The aforesaid conviction and sentences was awarded to the appellants vide orders dated 20.12.2003. Gurdial Singh was, however, acquitted of the charges against him. 14. The aforesaid conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by virtue of the order dated 20.12.2003 have been assailed by the appellants by way of present appeal. 15. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the previous enmity has been established by way of evidence on record and in the wake of this, false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out. It was contended that infact Gurdial Singh had been attacked earlier and the DDR is a testimony to the said occurrence. The injuries which have been received by the complainant and Rajinder Singh, could be a result of an accident which has also been reflected from the evidence of the doctor, who has not ruled out the causing of such injuries by way of accident. Besides, the weapons of offences and the recovery did not inspire any confidence. 16. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants pleaded that in the event of the Court not accepting the plea of the appellants regarding their false implication, the appellants be dealt with leniently as they are young men who were students at that point of time and they have already undergone one year and two months of the substantial sentence and that to direct them to undergo further imprisonment would be extremely harsh, besides with the passage of time probably the parties would have reconciled their differences, which were over a minor issue regarding the passage in the vicinity of their residence. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that there is no ambiguity in the role of the appellants in causing injuries to the injured persons and in the absence of any cogent evidence, the plea of false implication, as raised by the appellants, is hollow and, therefore, conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court is perfectly in order. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. The FIR regarding the incident was registered on the same day i.e. on 19.6.2000. PW-2 Dr. Jagir Mal examined the injured and stated that the duration of the injuries was within one hour. The FIR, which was recorded instantaneously coupled with the clear admission made by the appellants themselves that some incident had taken place at 7.30 a.m. gives credence to the prosecution case that the injuries were caused more as a retaliatory measure on 19.6.2000. The fact that the parties were known to each other leaves very little room, to doubt the identity of the appellants involved in the occurrence. Even if the plea of the appellants stands accepted, that there was factionalism and rivalry in the village, yet that, ipso facto, would not result in an inference being drawn that they have been falsely involved specially when the FIR was lodged promptly giving the first version of the incident soon after its occurrence. 20. The contradiction, which the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out regarding the time of occurrence do not advance his case as they are insufficient to cause a dent in the case of the prosecution. 21. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, there is nothing on record which could persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction of the appellants is perfectly justifiable. 22. Insofar as the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. The age of the appellants Shubh Karan, Satish and Madan Lal was 29, 21 and 25 years respectively at the time of recording of their statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. They have been facing criminal proceedings for the last 7 years. The dispute, concededly, was over a trifle issue regarding the passage in the village. The parties are neighbours and probably with the passage of time they would have burried the hatchet also. 23. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentences of the appellants to that, which they have already undergone provided they shall deposit a sum of Rs. The parties are neighbours and probably with the passage of time they would have burried the hatchet also. 23. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentences of the appellants to that, which they have already undergone provided they shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each in addition to the fine already paid by them out of the total amount of Rs. 45,000/-. Rupees 10,000/- shall be paid to injured Dalwinder Singh and Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to Rajinder Singh. The amount shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court within three months. The trial Court, after due notice to the injured persons named above shall disburse them the amount as stated above. Failure to deposit the said amount, shall result in the revival of the sentence.