Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 461 (PNJ)

Jaibir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2007-03-15

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. Conviction and sentences, as recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar under Sections 326/34 and 323/34 I.P.C., have been challenged by the appellants by filing the present appeal. 2. The occurrence, in question, had taken place on 14-04-1992 at about 8.00 P.M. Chandgi, PW2 claimed to have faced the attack, which was launched by the appellants, who, at that time, were armed with a kulhari and a lathi. To begin with, Sube Singh-accused proclaimed to teach Chandgi a lesson for abusing the accused. Thereafter, Sube Singh wielded the kulhari, which he was holding in his hand, and caused an injury on the head of Chandgi. Jaibir accused then gave a lathi blow hitting Chandgi on his forehead. An alarm was raised by the victim. Beg Raj and another person, who was also named Chandgi Ram, son of Kanhiya Lal, rushed to the spot and rescued the victim from the accused. 3. The injured was removed to General Hospital, Siwani on the following day, where, he was medico legally examined by Dr. K.K. Basotia, PW-6. The doctor, thereafter, sent a rukka to the Police Station. On receipt of the same, Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh, PW-5 reached hospital and made an application to find out as to whether the injured was fit to make a statement. On getting opinion in the negative, Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh recorded the statement of Beg Raj, PW-1, who narrated the entire incident. He also stated that the house of the accused adjoined the field of the injured. The cattle of the accused used to be let loose by them who damaged the crop of the injured. About three years back, Jaibir Singh and Chandgi had a quarrel regarding the same, which was, however, compromised. Inspite of that, the accused nursed a grudge against the injured. Beg Raj further apprised Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh that the injured could not be brought to the hospital during the night as no conveyance was available and there was fear of the accused. The investigation of the case was, then, taken up by Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh, who reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were arrested by him on 17-04-1992. Kulhari was recovered from the possession of Sube Singh, accused. The investigation of the case was, then, taken up by Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh, who reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan. He recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused were arrested by him on 17-04-1992. Kulhari was recovered from the possession of Sube Singh, accused. Initially, injury No. 1 of Chandgi was declared grievous and, accordingly, offences under Sections 326 and 323 were made out. On 23-04-1992, injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life and, accordingly, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was also added. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the appellants. It being a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, learned Illaqa Magistrate committed the case. On 02-07-1993, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar framed charges against the appellants for offences under Sections 307/323/34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Beg Raj, PW1 and Chandgi PW2 regarding the ocular account of the occurrence. Medical evidence came in the nature of testimony of Dr. K.K. Basotia, PW6. The investigation was conducted by Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh, PW5, while Head Constable Vijay Singh PW4 proved the recording of formal FIR. Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared by Shamsher Singh, Draftsman, PW3, who proved the same. 5. The case of the prosecution was, thereafter, put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused pleaded false implication and claimed to be innocent. However, in defence, the accused did not produce any witness but Jaibir Singh accused tendered two certified copies of the pedigree table. 6. The trial Court believed the prosecution version regarding the infliction of injuries by the appellants to Chandgi. However, it was held that there being no sufficient material on the record that Injury No. 1 on the person of Chandgi injured was dangerous to life, the trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. and instead convicted them under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 1000/- each for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was further directed that out of the fine, to be paid by the accused, Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to Chandgi injured. Hence, the present appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their assistance. The statements of Chandgi RW2 and Beg Raj, PW1 are clear and consistent in so far as causing of injuries by the two appellants. Both these witnesses also stated about the motive which impelled the appellants to open the attack upon Chandgi. The testimonies of these two witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence. No fault could be found g with the same. 8. The delay in lodging of the F.I.R. was sufficiently explained by Beg Raj, PW1 when he stated that no conveyance was available in the village during the night for transporting the injured to the hospital and also that there was fear of the appellants. After the injured was medico legally examined, the doctor had sent intimation to the police station in pursuance of which, Sub Inspector Jasrath Singh, PW5 reached the hospital. He first enquired about the fitness of the injured to make a statement. On learning that the injured was not fit for the said purpose, the police official recorded the statement of Beg Raj, PW1 on the basis of which, formal F.I.R. was recorded by Head Constable Vijay Singh, PW4. 9. Injury No. 1 on the person of Chandgi which was caused by Sube Singh, appellant with kulhari was declared grievous in nature, while, injury No. 2 caused by Jaibir, appellant with a lathi was declared simple in nature. There is no material available on the file to take a view different from the one taken by the trial Court in holding the appellants guilty for offence under Sections 323 I.P.C. 10. There is no material available on the file to take a view different from the one taken by the trial Court in holding the appellants guilty for offence under Sections 323 I.P.C. 10. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be seen that the appellants remained in jail during the trial of the case for a period of about one week. They were initially arrested on 17-04-1992 and granted the concession of bail vide order dated 18-04-1992. They were again taken in custody on 09-05-1992 when offences under Sections 326 and 307 I.P.C. were added to the F.I.R. and released on bail on 13-05-1992. The occurrence had taken place in April, 1992. The trial Court while awarding the sentences of imprisonment to the appellants held that, they did not appear to be of depraved character. Both the appellants are brothers. They have their respective families to look after. Beside their children, they are required to take care of their aged parents. The appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 15 years. No useful purpose would be served by sending them to jail to serve the unexpired period of sentence at this stage. However, injured namely, Chandgi can be adequately compensated by awarding adequate compensation to him. 11. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 326 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for the said offences are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence under Section 326/34 I.P.C., is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, the defaulting appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The fine of Rs. 250/- imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C, alongwith its default clause is maintained. Out of the fine, to be recovered from the appellants, Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to injured Chandgi as compensation. The fine as initially imposed by the trial Court, was paid by the appellants upon their conviction and sentence. The remaining amount of fine as enhanced shall be paid by them within three months from today. Out of the fine, to be recovered from the appellants, Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to injured Chandgi as compensation. The fine as initially imposed by the trial Court, was paid by the appellants upon their conviction and sentence. The remaining amount of fine as enhanced shall be paid by them within three months from today. With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.