Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2877 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-10-08

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. - This judgment shall dispose two cases namely, CRA No. 1720-SB of 2002 and CRR No. 557 of 2003 as the same are directed against the common judgment dated 12.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barriala (hereinafter as "Frial Court). However, the facts are being derived from CRA No. 1720-SB of 2002. 2. Accused appellants, namely, Manjit Singh and Sukhdev Singh, have preferred the appeal in hand against the judgment dated 12.9.2002 delivered by the Trial Court whereby both of them have been convicted for the offence under Section 308, 325, 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as under :- Manjit Singh To undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section. 308 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Sukhdev Singh To undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. 3. To undergo R.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. 3. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The facts of the present appeal, as set up by the prosecution, finds mention in paras 3 to 5 of the impugned judgment, which read as under : "3. The facts, in brief, are that Sukhdev Singh son of Gamdoor Singh resident of Sangatpura, was married to Sukhwant Kaur daughter of Kartar Singh at Village Bakhatgarh about seven years before 31.1.1999. Baldev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Sangatpur, brother-in-law, (Sandhu) of said Sukhdev Singh son of Gamdoor Singh, was married to Gurmit Kaur, sister-in-law of Sukhdev Singh complainant. A (1i spz e arose between Sukhdev Singh complainant and his wife Sukhwani Kaur about 6 to 7 months before 31.1.1999. Being enraged Sukhwant Kaur, went to village Bakhatgarh. Sukhdev Singh complainant earlier had come a number of times to village Bakhatgarh for taking back Sukhwant Kazu, but she did not accompany him. On the contrary, his brother-in-law Manjit Singh, Nirmal Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused, treated him shabbily. 4. On 30.1.1999 at about 7.30 PM, Sukhdev Singh complainant along with his brother-in-law (Sandhu) Baldev Singh, Surjit Kaur, sister of Baldev Singh, mediator is arranging his marriage with Sukhwant Kaur, Jagpal Singh son of the elder sister of Baldev Singh and Gurmit Kaur, his sister-in-law, came to the house of Sukhdev Singh Subedar, brother-in-law of the complainant at village Bakhatgarh in Armada Jeep for settling the matter. The jeep was being driven by the driver, whose dame was not known to Sukhdev Singh, complainant. Sukhdev Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant served tea to him and other persons, who accompanied him. They continued talking with each other for a long time. Nirmal Singh, another brother-in-law of the complainant, brought a bottle of liguor and offered the same to him (complainant) and others, but they did not take the same. The complainant and his companions suspected that Sukhdev Singh Subedar and Nirmal Singh might have connived with each other. 5. At about 9.30 PM on 30.1.1999 Nirmal Singh and Manjit Singh, brother-in-law of Sukhdev Singh complainant came to him. The complainant and his companions suspected that Sukhdev Singh Subedar and Nirmal Singh might have connived with each other. 5. At about 9.30 PM on 30.1.1999 Nirmal Singh and Manjit Singh, brother-in-law of Sukhdev Singh complainant came to him. They took Surjit Kaur, sister of Baldev Singh, Jagpal Singh nephew of Baldev Singh and Gurmit Kaur, on the pretext that they should stay in their house for the night whereas Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant may sleep in the house of Sukhdev Singh Subedar. Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant were still awake, when after some time Nirmal Singh armed with gandasa, Manjit Singh armed with gandasa, Sukhdev Singh Subedar armed with dang, all brother-in-law of Sukhdev Singh complainant and Sher Singh @ Sheri, Ex-Sarpanch came, who asked them (Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh) that they were to talk to them. Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant got up, accompanied them, and came to the lane, where their jeep was standing. The driver of the jeep was still in the same. Nirmal Singh gave a gandasa blow, which hit the right leg of baldev Singh, Manjit Singh accused gave a gandasa blow, which hit the left leg of Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh, then fell down. Sukhdev Singh Subedar then gave a dang blow, which hit Sukhdev Singh complainant on the right side of the head. Sukhdev Singh complainant also fell down. Sher Singh @ Sheri Sarpanch, was loudly saving that on that day, they shall not allow them to escape. When alarm was raised by Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant, Suijit Kaur and Jagpal Singh also came. They made an attempt to save Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant. The accused, however, continued beating them. Thereafter, Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, complainant were put into the Armada Jeep, aforesaid. The driver of the jeep was also put in the same. They asked the driver of the jeep that, in case, he supported or helped Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant, he would be dealt in the same manner. The accused, thereafter took Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, complainant, in the jeep to the field, known as Berianwala Field, and declared that they would deal with them severely. Sukhdev Singh Subedar and Sher Singh @ Sheri gave a number of dang blows on the person of Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant. They became unconscious. The accused, thereafter took Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, complainant, in the jeep to the field, known as Berianwala Field, and declared that they would deal with them severely. Sukhdev Singh Subedar and Sher Singh @ Sheri gave a number of dang blows on the person of Baldev Singh and Sukhdev Singh complainant. They became unconscious. When in the morning, Sukhdev Singh complainant, regained consciousness, he found himself admitted in Civil Hospital, Barnala. Since Baldev Singh had received a large number of injuries, he was referred to Rajindra hospital, Patiala." 5. After investigation, final report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code was presented whereupon charge under Section 308 read with Section 34, 325, 323 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its version, examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely, Dr. Bhalinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala, who medico-Legally examined Sukhdev Singh and Baldev Singh as PW 1; Dr. Sanjay Sathi, Senior Resident, Radiologist, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala as PW2; Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga as PW3; Surjit Kaur, eye-witness as PW4; Baldev Singh, one of the injured as PW5; ASI Ravinder Kumar, Investigating Officer as PW6; Jagpal Singh, another eye- witness as PW7. PWs Uurmit Kaur, Lila Ram and Gurjant Singh were given up as having been won over by the accused and MI-IC Jasbir Singh, C. Nirmal Singh, SI Ilarnarinder Singh and Dr. Sulchbir Chohan were given up being unnecessary. 7. Statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code of the accused were recorded while putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them on record in the prosecution version which they denied and pleaded false implication. 8. In defence, the accused pleaded that Sukhdev Singh, Subedar accused was separate from them and his house was at a considerable distance from his house. He further stated that their sister Uurmit Kaur was married to one Baldev Singh, who was mediator in arranging the marriage of their another sister Sukhwant Kaur with Sukhdev Singh complainant. Baldev Singh wanted to have illicit relations with Sulhwant Kaur, which she did not permit. Sukhdev Singh complainant was also asking Sukhwant Kaur to have illicit relations with Baldev Singh but on her refusal, he used to beat Sukhwant Kaur. Baldev Singh wanted to have illicit relations with Sulhwant Kaur, which she did not permit. Sukhdev Singh complainant was also asking Sukhwant Kaur to have illicit relations with Baldev Singh but on her refusal, he used to beat Sukhwant Kaur. Sukhwant Kaur moved an application to the SSP Sangrur, which was sent to the Police Station, Lehra, in which a compromise was effected to the effect that that Baldev Singh would not visit the house of Sukhdev Singh complainant. The compromise is Ex. D-7. 9. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 308, 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and awarded them sentence for the term as indicated in para 2 of this judgment. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Nirmal Singh and Sher Singh of the charges. 10. Hence this appeal. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the statement of injured witness Baldev Singh, PW-5, accused Sukhdev Singh gave soti blow on his mouth and gave another soti blow to complainant Sukhdev Singh. The complainant Sukhdev Singh could not be examined as he expired during trial. Dr. Manu Sehgal, Junior Resident, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, carried out the skiagrams of the injured Baldev Singh. The injury attributed to the complainant Sukhdev Singh is a simple hurt. However, he was not examined by the prosecution. 12. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the parties are very closely related to each other. The accused Sukhdev Singh is brother-in-law of injured Baldev Singh, PW-5 and complainant Sukhdev Singh. As per compromise Exhibit D-7, it is made out that matrimonial life of complainant Sukhdev Singh and his wife Sukhwant Kaur was not a happy married life. On that account, she had come to the house of his brother Sukhdev Singh, accused. The complainant Sukhdev Singh, Baldev Singh, PW-5, alongwith other family members had gone for negotiating when the occurrence took place on 30.1.1999. As recorded above, the complainant died during the pendency of trial. The appellant Sukhdev Singh caused one simple injury to complainant Sukhdev Singh and another injury was caused to Baldev Singh, PW5. It has also been submitted that the appellant is an old man of 67 years of age and has suffered protracted trial for more than 11 years. As recorded above, the complainant died during the pendency of trial. The appellant Sukhdev Singh caused one simple injury to complainant Sukhdev Singh and another injury was caused to Baldev Singh, PW5. It has also been submitted that the appellant is an old man of 67 years of age and has suffered protracted trial for more than 11 years. The appellant has already undergone more than 6 months of his actual sentence. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the accused Manjit Singh was released after serving his sentence. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has submitted that as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and order of the learned trial Court he maintained. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 15. In view of the statement of injured witness Baldev Singh, PW5, which is in consonance with the medical evidence, no further corroboration is required. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant has informed the Court that appellant- Manjit Singh, has already been released on 23.9.2004, during the pendency of the appeal, after getting Government remission of 03 years and 04 months, therefore, the present appeal qua Manjit Singh may be ordered to be dismissed. as infructuous. Ordered accordingly. 17. The appellant-Sukhdev has already undergone more than six months of his actual sentence and has suffered the mental agony of protracted trial for more than 11 years as the FIR is dated 31.1.1999 coupled with the fact that no previous antecedents have been brought to surface so as to condemn the accused/appellant as habitual offenders. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would not be met, if the appellant, who is an old man of 67 years, is sent for incarceration to suffer his remaining part of sentence at this stage of life. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 308, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code stands maintained. In view of the attending circumstances that the parties are closely related to each other, the sentence awarded to appellant-Sukhdev Singh by the learned trial is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of the appellant is ehnanced to Rs. In view of the attending circumstances that the parties are closely related to each other, the sentence awarded to appellant-Sukhdev Singh by the learned trial is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of the appellant is ehnanced to Rs. 50,000/- besides the fine imposed by the trial Court which shall be deposited by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Barnala, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the amount of enhanced fine of Rs. 50,000/-, an amount of Rs. 45,000/- shall be paid to the injured-Baldev Singh, PW5, and Rs. 5,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 18. In case of non-payment of amount of enhanced fine, the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 19. With the above modification/direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. 20. So far as Crl. Revision No. 557 of 2003 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not convicted this Court with regard to any illegality or infirmity in the findings given by the trial Court. Consequently, Crl. Revision No. 557 of 2003 stands dismissed. 21. Since main appeal is disposed of by this order, therefore, misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Appeal disposed of.