Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2038 (PNJ)

Sis Pal v. State Of Haryan

2007-11-21

MAHESH GROVER

body2007
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. On 3.6.1995 at about 10.00 P.M., the appellants, namely, Sis Pal and Kala alias Sanjay, caused following injuries to injured-Raj Singh (PW6) :- 1. There was lacerated wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep on left fronto parietal area 1.5 cm from mid line. Fresh blood was present. 2. There was lacerated wound 4 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep on left parietal area, 5 cms from mid line. 3. There was lacerated wound 3 cms x 0.75 cm x bone deep on right parietal area, 3.5 cms from mid line. 4. There was lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm. X scalp-deep on right temporal area, 3 cms above the right pinna. X-ray and surgeon opinion was advised for injuries No. 1 to 4. 5. There was contusion 6 cms x 2.5 cm on posterior aspect of right elbow joint and upper 1/3rd of forearm. For this injury x-ray elbow including 1/3 rd of forearm was advised. 6. There was contusion 10 cms x 2 cm on the antero lateral aspect of left thigh. For this injury x-ray left thigh was advised. 7. There was contusion 6 cms x 3 cm on the posterior lateral aspect of left arm. For this injury x-ray left arm was advised. 2. The prosecution case was that PW4-Randhir Singh, at the instance of his brother-PW6-Raj Singh (injured), had gone to the shop of the appellants and demanded liquor. Since the appellants were not dealing with liquor, they questioned PW6-Raj Singh as to why he had sent his brother for demanding liquor from their shop when they were not selling the same. This led to an altercation and the appellants, who were already incensed at the act of PW6- Raj Singh gave him repeated beatings with lathi and `sheru (a part of the wooden frame of the cot). 3. As a result of the aforesaid incident, PW6-Raj Singh received the aforementioned injuries, which were elaborately explained in the testimony of PW3-Dr. Labh Singh, who had examined the injured on 4.6.1995 at 3.15 A.M. 4. The prosecution completed its investigation and submitted a challan against the appellants pursuant to the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and prima facie found their complicity in the offences punishable under Sections 308, 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. 5. Labh Singh, who had examined the injured on 4.6.1995 at 3.15 A.M. 4. The prosecution completed its investigation and submitted a challan against the appellants pursuant to the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and prima facie found their complicity in the offences punishable under Sections 308, 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court) charged the appellants for the commission of the aforementioned offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, examined as many as twelve witnesses. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants pleaded innocence and stated that Randhir Singh, brother of injured-Raj Singh owed some money to them. They further stated that on account of his violent nature, there was enmity between injured-Raj Singh and several villagers and some unidentified person had caused injuries to him in the darkness of night and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The appellants examined DW1-Constable Bahadur Singh and DW2-Constable Balbir Singh in their defence. 9. After appraisal of the entire evidence, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 17.7.1996, held the appellants guilty and convicted them under Sections 308, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Finding no evidence to establish the charge under Section 506 of the I.P.C., it acquitted them of the same. Vide its order of sentence of the even date, the trial Court sentenced the appellants as under :- For offence punishable under Section 308 of the I.P.C to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. For offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. 10 In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 12. The case, when it matured for its final disposal, was shown in the warning list several times, but, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to appear compelling this Court to appoint Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellants. 13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 12. The case, when it matured for its final disposal, was shown in the warning list several times, but, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to appear compelling this Court to appoint Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellants. 13. At the time of arguments, Shri Vishal Malik, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, who was also heard. 14. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated and even though, it was not categorically pleaded in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., yet, there was an underlying enmity between them and the family of PW6-Raj Singh. It was further contended that it has come in evidence that appellant- Sanjay alias Kala had contested election in the college against Rajesh, one of the brothers of PW6-Raj Singh and because of this lurking enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated. That apart, it was argued that no independent witness, who could be said to be worthy of reliance, has been produced and the so-called independent witnesses, who have been examined, were, in fact, relatives of PW6-Raj Singh and, therefore, no credence could be given to their testimony. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the F.I.R. was lodged promptly at 7.00 A.M. on 4.6.1995 and in view of this, there was hardly any scope for manipulations in the version of the prosecution and having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that the parties were known to each other, the plea of false implication cannot be sustained. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 17. There is no dispute that the incident took place at 10.00 P.M. on 3.6.1995 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 4.6.1995 at 7.00 A.M. During this interregnum, PW6-Raj Singh was subjected to medical treatment at about 3.00 A.M. There is, thus, no delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. in which a forth-right narration of events had been given about the incident which had taken place a few hours before. 18. 18. The prompt lodging of the F.I.R. obliterates the chances of any manipulations in the narration and such circumstances should normally be taken to be correct unless the person accused therein of committing the offence produces sufficient evidence to dislodge the correctness of the version given in it which gets credence on account thereof. 19. The question of false implication also does not inspire any confidence as the parties were concededly known to each other and even if it was night time, yet, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals the identified role of the appellants. 20. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the appellants had, indeed, committed the offences of which they have been found guilty by the trial Court. 21. In view of the above, the appeal does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. At this stage, it was pleaded by the counsels for the appellants that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence as the incident is of the year 1995 and appellant-Sis Pal was aged 24 years and appellant-Sanjay alias Kala was aged 21 years at time of recording of their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 10.4.1996. He further contended that the appellants are not hardened criminals and the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment. 23. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter. Concededly, the appellants were young men and the sequence of events, even according to the F.I.R., does not reveal any pre-meditative intent and reflects a sudden flare-up of the incident which resulted in the injuries to PW6-Raj Singh. That apart, the occurrence is of the year 1995 and the appellants would be well entrenched in life by now after lapse of 12 years. 24. However, the fact that PW6-Raj Singh suffered a fracture of the skull and the said injury was declared potentially to be dangerous to life, cannot be lost sight of. 25. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of already undergone subject to the condition that they pay a sum of Rs. one lac to PW6-Raj Singh as compensation. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the following manner :- 1. one lac to PW6-Raj Singh as compensation. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the following manner :- 1. The conviction of the appellants is maintained. 2. The sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of already undergone subject to the condition that they deposit with the trial Court a sum of Rs.one lac, in equal proportion, within four months from today, for onward disbursal of the same as compensation to PW6-Raj Singh after due notice. 3. In the event of the failure of the appellants to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the sentence as awarded by the trial Court shall stand revived and in that eventuality, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fee of the Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae is assessed at Rs. 4000/-.