Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1226 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

2008-07-14

K.C.PURI

body2008
JUDGMENT K. C. Puri, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.8.1996 passed by Shri Harbans Lal, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby he convicted the appellants for various offences and sentenced them as under:- Name Offence Sentence Satnam Singh U/S 323 IPC. RI for six months. U/S 148 IPC. RI for one year. U/S 427 RI for one year. Read with Section 149 IPC. U/S 452 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Bahadur Singh U/S 323/149 IPC. RI for six months. U/S 148 IPC RI for one year. U/S 427/149 IPC RI for one year. U/S 452 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months. Ajit Singh. U/S 323/149 IPC. RI for six months. U/S 148 IPC. RI for one year. U/S 427/149 IPC RI for one year. U/S 452 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months. Malkiat Singh U/S 323/149 IPC. RI for six months. U/S 148 IPC RI for one year. U/S 427/149 IPC RI for one year. U/S 452 IPC RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment acquitted Man Singh, Joginder Singh, Kanwaljit Singh and Kulwant Kaur, co-accused. Accused Mahant Charanjit Singh was declared as a proclaimed offender and Balwant Singh, co-accused died during the trial. 3. The prosecution case lie in narrow compass as under:- On 14.10.1989, at about 9-00 A.M, Gurvinder Singh alongwith his wife and children was present in the disputed portion of the house known as Eucalyptus house. In the meantime, Mahant Charanjit Singh, since proclaimed offender, Satnam Singh alias Satta, Bahadur Singh, Malkiat Singh, Ajit Singh, Kulwinder Kaur and one more lady, mother of Mahant Charanjit Singh, and some other persons came there and forced their entry into the portion in possession of Gurvinder Singh by breaking open the door. In the meantime, Mahant Charanjit Singh, since proclaimed offender, Satnam Singh alias Satta, Bahadur Singh, Malkiat Singh, Ajit Singh, Kulwinder Kaur and one more lady, mother of Mahant Charanjit Singh, and some other persons came there and forced their entry into the portion in possession of Gurvinder Singh by breaking open the door. Mahant Charanjit Singh told his companions that Gurvinder Singh has disobeyed his order by not vacating the house and asked his companions to teach him a lesson. Bahadur Singh accused held Gurvinder Singh in his grips. Satnam Singh accused started beating Gurvinder Singh with a stick in his hand. Their co-accused started throwing his luggage out of the house. Kulwinder Kaur accused started beating Raveen Kaur wife of Gurvinder Singh. Ajit Singh accused also joined the ladies in beating Raveen Kaur while the other co-accused continued throwing luggage out of the house. Mahant Charanjit Singh picked up the licensed gun of Gurvinder Singh lying inside the house and loaded the same after lifting the cartridges from the house of Gurvinder Singh and fired two shots from the same aiming towards Gurvinder Singh who saved his life by lying down on the ground. Charanjit Singh Pannu, Ranjit Singh and Charan Pal Singh residing in different portions of the same house also came there on hearing the noise and they intervened to save Gurvinder Singh and his family members. When the accused did not listen to their entreaties, Charanjit Singh Pannu, PW, informed the police on telephone. 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that the police came to the spot and recorded statement, Exhibit PB, of Gurvinder Singh. All the accused including Mahant Charanjit Singh were apprehended by the police at the spot and the police also took into possession the licensed gun from Mahant Charanjit Singh. The police also lifted empties which were taken into possession vide seizure memo, Exhibit PC. Besides this, the police also seized one truck, one tractor-trolley and one motor cycle on which the accused had come there, vide memo Exhibit PD. The iron bar and other weapons, being carried by the accused, were also taken into possession vide a memo. The broken house hold articles, sofa set, glass panes were also taken into possession. The police completed the investigation in the case. 5. The iron bar and other weapons, being carried by the accused, were also taken into possession vide a memo. The broken house hold articles, sofa set, glass panes were also taken into possession. The police completed the investigation in the case. 5. After commitment, the accused were charge-sheeted for various offences to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Jaswant Singh, PW-2 Gurvinder Singh, PW-3 Charan Pal Singh, PW-4 Raveen Kaur, PW-5 Narinder Singh and PW-6, DSP Ravinder Kumar Bakshi. 7. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which they denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. They also pleaded false implication. 8. Satnam Singh accused took up the plea that Charanjit Singh is a Granthi and he used to perform Keertan on every Sunday and for that purpose, a day earlier, he used to clean the place and set the other instruments as he along with Ajit Singh and Bahadur Singh used to assist Charanjit Singh for the performance of Keertan. For this purpose, on Saturday, at about 12-00 noon, Ajit Singh and Bahadur Singh reached the house of Charanjit Singh. Two or three Constables were present there. They were taken to the Police Station. That house was other than the house where the occurrence is now alleged to have taken place. It was at the Police Station that this false case was registered on the next day by collecting other persons who were not known to them. 9. Similar was the pleas of Bahadur Singh and Ajit Singh accused. Kanwaljit Singh,co-accused took up the plea that on Sunday, he had come to Amritsar to attend Keertan to be performed by Charanjit Singh and when he reached near the house of Charanjit Singh, where he was to perform the Keertan, he and other persons who came there, were taken to the Police Station and falsely involved in the case. Joginder Singh, Man Singh, co-accused and Malkiat Singh accused also took the same pleas. Accused Kulwant Kaur, co-accused stated that she was taken from her house and falsely implicated in this case. 10. I have heard arguments addressed by Mr. P.S.Hundal, counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, AAG Punjab and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 11. Accused Kulwant Kaur, co-accused stated that she was taken from her house and falsely implicated in this case. 10. I have heard arguments addressed by Mr. P.S.Hundal, counsel for the appellants and Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, AAG Punjab and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 11. It is reported that appellant No.1 Satnam Singh son of Sahib Singh and appellant No.4 Ajit Singh son of Sham Singh have already expired and nobody has come forward to pursue the appeal on their behalf. So, the appeal qua appellant Nos.1 and 4 was dismissed as having abated, vide order dated 30.5.2008 passed by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction of the appellants. I have carefully gone through the entire record and find that the impugned judgment is impeccable and does not call for any interference. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is confirmed. 13. On the point of sentence, the counsel for the appellants has submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have place on 14.10.1989 i.e. about 19 years back. Accused Bahadur Singh had given his age 60 years at the time of framing charge and now he must be about 80 years. Accused Malkiat Singh is also now about 54 years of age. They have remained in custody for some days during investigation and trial. So, in these circumstances, it is not proper to send them to jail after elapse of about 19 years. He prayed that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the one already undergone by them. 14. I have carefully considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1989; the part attributed to them in the alleged occurrence and the fact that the appellants have already undergone the agony of protracted trial for the last about 19 years, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the substantive sentence of the appellants is reduced to the one already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. 16. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is maintained. 17. With the above modification in the sentence part of the judgment of the trial Court, this appeal stands disposed of.