Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 745 (PNJ)

Sukhbir v. State Of Haryana

2008-03-24

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by Sukhbir son of Chande and Poppe alias Randhir son of Chande. Both were named as accused in case FIR No. 476 dated 11.9.1994 registered at Police Station City, Sonepat, under Sections 307, 324 and 34 IPC. They were convicted under Sections 307, 324 and 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of PW.5 Naresh. It was stated in the FIR by Naresh that a case is going on in between their family and Chande son of Bishamber Lal i.e. father of the appellants. There were some proceeding under Sections 107/151 IPC and the matter is also pending between the parties regarding partition of the house. It is stated that on 11.9.1994 at about 5.30 P.M. he was present in his house. Both the appellants were coming from the side of Bazaar and at that time Sukhbir was said to have stated to Naresh as to why he considered himself to be a big boss, upon which an altercation started and the complainant party also came in the street. It is stated that Sukhbir caught hold of Naresh and Randhir gave knife blow in the abdomen below portion of navel. It is further stated that when he tried to catch hold of the knife, then the knife caused injury on the right hand finger adjacent to the thumb. 3. Medicolegal evidence corroborates the version given by PW.5 Naresh in the FIR. Following two injuries were found on his person : "1. One stab wound 1.5 X 1.0 cm with regular margins over left side of abdomen wall 5.0 cm below the umblicus 4.0 cm lateral to the medium plane. Fresh bleeding was oozing out. The patient was advised X-ray abdomen and Surgeons opinion for this injury. 2. Two incised wounds 1 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep over right index finger first phlanx palmer aspect". PW.2 Dharampal has produced the medical record of Naresh. Fresh bleeding was oozing out. The patient was advised X-ray abdomen and Surgeons opinion for this injury. 2. Two incised wounds 1 cm X 0.5 cm X muscle deep over right index finger first phlanx palmer aspect". PW.2 Dharampal has produced the medical record of Naresh. PW.3 Dr.A.K.Dalal had operated the abdominal injury of Naresh. PW.4 Rajesh, Constable, had prepared the scaled site plan. PW.5 Naresh is the injured witness. He reiterated the given version in the FIR. PW.6 Bhola alias Yashwant has corroborated the testimony of PW.5 Naresh as an eye-witness. PW.7 Mohinder Singh, Constable, on the basis of disclosure statement Ex.PK got recovered knife Ex.P1 vide recovery memo Ex.PL. PW.8 Ram Narain, Sub Inspector had received ruqa Ex.PJ and had recorded FIR Ex.PJ/1. PW.9 Ram Kishan, Assistant Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer. 4. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. They denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. No evidence was led in defence. 5. Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has made twofold submissions. It has been stated that the doctors opined injuries to be dangerous to life, therefore, the same will fall under Section 326 IPC as it should be construed as endangering life and there is no opinion that except for timely aid, the injury would have proved sufficient to cause death. Secondly, it has been stated that even though the relation between the parties were not cordial on the date of occurrence, the accused was spotted by PW.5 Naresh as stated in examination-in-chief coming from the bazaar and at that time Sukhbir is stated to have said as to why Naresh considered himself to be a big boss and then an altercation took place and occurrence took place in the street. Therefore, occurrence has taken place suddenly on spur of moment and it was not pre-planned. 6. Mr. Nehra has stated that the very fact that the parties were in dispute and there was sufficient material to infer intention to commit an offence of murder. It was stated by Mr. Nehra that it was immaterial that the accused were coming from the side of bazaar and had not trespassed into the house of the complainant. It was stated by Mr.Nehra that common intention regarding the offence can be developed at the spot itself. 7. It was stated by Mr. Nehra that it was immaterial that the accused were coming from the side of bazaar and had not trespassed into the house of the complainant. It was stated by Mr.Nehra that common intention regarding the offence can be developed at the spot itself. 7. I have perused the FIR and the testimony of witnesses. The very fact that relations between the parties were not cordial, is sufficient to conclude that enmity is a double edged weapon. There can be motive on the part of the appellants to cause injuries at the same time complainant can also inflate the number of accused. From the prosecution evidence, it is evident that only one accused Randhir was armed and Sukhbir was empty handed. From the FIR it is made out that the blow was given by Randhir in abdomen of PW.5 Naresh and second blow is on the finger when knife was caught hold by the injured. It can also be noticed that Sukhbir had not given any exhortation to teach lesson to injured PW.5 Naresh Kumar. It is stated that Sukhbir told PW.5 Naresh Kumar as to why he considered himself to be a big boss, therefore, an altercation had taken place and the parties had come in the street and occurrence ensued. 8. From appreciation of the evidence, benefit of doubt can be granted to Sukhbir Singh as he was empty handed and the only role assigned to him was that he had given an exhortation, as why injured consider himself to be boss. Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution benefit of doubt is extended to him and he is acquitted. 9. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by Mr. Narula that there is no opinion to conclude that an offence of attempt to murder has been committed. The injury has been caused in the abdomen and it has been very serious. Therefore, Randhir is guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC. It has been stated by Mr. Narula that occurrence is more than 13 years old and benefit of protracted trial should accrue to the appellant especially when in the last 13 years, no untoward incident has taken place. The Court has to balance sentencing taking into consideration injury and the protracted trial. If the injury is aggravating circumstance, protracted trial is a mitigating circumstance. Narula that occurrence is more than 13 years old and benefit of protracted trial should accrue to the appellant especially when in the last 13 years, no untoward incident has taken place. The Court has to balance sentencing taking into consideration injury and the protracted trial. If the injury is aggravating circumstance, protracted trial is a mitigating circumstance. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Taking totality of circumstances, sentence of appellant Poppe alias Randhir is reduced from five years to three years. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it is ordered that appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed off.