Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2240 (PNJ)

Dharambir v. State Of Haryana

2007-12-21

R.S.MADAN

body2007
Judgment R.S.Madan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated February 12, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused as under:- Accused Dharambir Under Section 307 IPC To undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of two months. Accused Rajinder and Krishan. Under Section 323 IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 323 IPC. 2 In brief, the case of the prosecution is as culled out is that on June 12, 1996 exchange of hot words had taken place between the women folk for fetching the water first from the water tap and lateron the accused persons with a common intention armed with knife and lathies and assaulted the complainant. Accused Dharambir who was armed with knife gave four successive knife blows to Rohtas, two in the abdomen, one under the chest and another under the neck.. As a result of blows Rohtas fell down on the ground. Sukhchain alias Kala then gave a lathi blow on the thighs of Rohtas When Ram Chander and Naresh tried to prevent Dharambir from causing further blows to Rohtas, accused Krishan gave a lathi blow on the left side of head of Ram Chander whereas Rajinder gave lathi blow on the head of Naresh. On their raising an alarm, the residents of locality were attracted to the scene of occurrence and rescued them complainant from the clutches of the accused persons. Rohtas was rushed to the General Hospital, Sonipat by Ram Chander and Naresh and was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Thereafter on the statement of complainant Ram Chander (Ex.PX) and Naresh Kumar were recorded by HC Ishwar Singh and sent by him to the Police Station City, Sonipat. On the basis of this statement (Ex.PX), ASI Ram Avtar registered the FIR under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the above mentioned accused on 12.6.1996. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and forwarded to the C.J.M., Sonipat who vide her order dated 18.9.1996 committed the case to the court of Sessions. 3. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and forwarded to the C.J.M., Sonipat who vide her order dated 18.9.1996 committed the case to the court of Sessions. 3. The accused were accordingly charged under Sections 307, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned trial court on the basis of allegations contained in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent therewith on 10.9.1996, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. V.K. Gupta, PW-1, Attar Chand, Record Clerk, Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, PW-2, ASI Ram Avtar as PW-3, Constable Inderpal Draftsman as PW-4, Head Constable Sher Singh, as PW-5, Dr.(Ms) Kanta Goel as PW-6, Dr. (Ms) Usha as PW-7, HC Virender Singh, as PW-8, ASI Rajinder Singh, as PW-9, Inspector Ram Kishan as PW-10, Ram Chander injured as PW-11, Naresh injured as PW-12, Rohtas injured as PW- 13, Constable Jagminder as PW-14 and Head Constable Ishwar Singh, as PW-15. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, as envisaged under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of the accused were recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence appearing against them, was put to them to which they pleaded as under : "That on 12.6.1996 in the morning Guddi sister of Dharambir accused was going to jungle with a sickle in her hand for bringing fuel wood. When she was passing through the street in front of his house, Rohtas accosted her and told her that his wife wanted to see her in his house in connection with some urgent matter. When Guddi entered the house of Rohtas she did not find his wife in the house. Rohtas then made an attempt to rape her. Guddi gave several blows with sickle to Rohtas in order to prevent Rohtas from dishonoring her. She also raised alarm which attracted Krishan and mother of Guddi to the house of Rohtas. Krishan told Rohtas that he committed a grievous wrong by making an attempt to rape Guddi. Ram Chander who had also reached there then gave a blow with a plough to Krishan. When Ram Chander and Naresh were taking Rohtas to Civil Hospital, Sonipat the rickshaw in which they were travelling gave way. The wheel of the rickshaw became free and separated from the rickshaw. Ram Chander who had also reached there then gave a blow with a plough to Krishan. When Ram Chander and Naresh were taking Rohtas to Civil Hospital, Sonipat the rickshaw in which they were travelling gave way. The wheel of the rickshaw became free and separated from the rickshaw. Ram Chander and Naresh fell down from the rickshaw and suffered injuries. In support of this version, the accused have examined Guddi DW-1, Ramphal DW2 and Krishan Kumar DW-3. 6. The learned trial court after going through the evidence and the documents brought on the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, returned the findings of guilt against the accused vide its judgment and order of conviction, as already indicated above. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have examined the entire evidence and documents brought on the record minutely. 8. At the very out-set, the learned counsel for the appellants stated that he does not want to challenge the order of conviction recorded against the appellants. He, however, submitted that the present case was registered against the appellants on 12.6.1996 and they have suffered the protracted trial for more than 10 years. During all these years, the sword of Damocles remained hanging over their heads. He further submitted that the two accused, namely, Rajinder Singh and Krishan who were sentenced to undergo RI for six months, have already undergone the period of sentence awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereas accused Dharambir, who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years, has already undergone the sentence of two years five months and 25 days. The learned counsel thus prayed that the order of sentence of five years awarded to accused Dharambir may be converted into the sentence already undergone by him. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court is confirmed and the sentence imposed by the learned trial court to accused-appellant Dharambir is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, keeping in view the nature of the case, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. However, keeping in view the nature of the case, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, which the appellant Dharambir shall deposit in the trial court within a period of two months from today, failing which the appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed and the order of the trial court and would stand restored. 10. Out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- if deposited, an amount of Rs. 9000/- shall be paid to Rohtas as compensation, for the injuries suffered by him at the hands of accused. 11. Except for the above modifications with regard to the period of sentence and the amount of fine, fully described in the preceding paragraph, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.