Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3275 (PNJ)

Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab

2010-12-07

K.C.PURI

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - This is an appeal directed by accused appellants against the judgment dated 24.7.1999 passed by Sh. R.P. Nagrath, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which Gurjant Singh and Inderjit Singh – appellants have been convicted under Section 307, 324, 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:- 1. Gurjant Singh – To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo R.I. For six months under Section 307 IPC. 2. Inderjit Singh – To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of fine, to further undergo R.I. For six months under Section 307/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.5.1997 at 10.00 A.M. Bir Singh-complainant was working in his fields at village Samooran. Bir Singh was living separately from his brothers Gurjant Singh and Inderjit Sing, who happen to be accused. His brothers, i.e. accused were working in the adjoining fields. Gurjant Singh was armed with Gandasa and he started cutting trees standing on the boundary of the common water channel. Bir Singh objected to this. Inderjit Singh caught hold of Bir Singh and Gurjant Singh inflicted two injuries on the head of Bir Singh. Bir Singh raised an alarm which attracted his son Satnam Singh, who was taking bath in the tube-well. Both the accused ran away from the spot. Satnam Singh took Bir Singh to the village from where his wife arranged a scooter of Kala son of Lal Singh and Bir Singh was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kuharian. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 3. The Illaqa Magistrate supplied copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. Charge under Sections 307 and 324 IPC was framed against Gurjant Singh, whereas Charge under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against Inderjit Singh. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. 4. Charge under Sections 307 and 324 IPC was framed against Gurjant Singh, whereas Charge under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against Inderjit Singh. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Kirpal Singh, who conducted the Medico Legal Examination of injured Bir Singh, PW-2 Bahadur Singh, Radiographer, who conducted X-ray in respect of injuries of Bir Singh, PW-3 Bir Singh, injured-complainant, PW-4 Satnam Singh, eye-witness, PW-5 ASI Nahar Singh, PW-6 Gurmeet Singh, Patwari and closed the evidence. 6. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied. 7. Gurjant Singh – accused pleaded that he was watering the fields through the water course and Bir Singh – complainant tried to stop the flow of water by putting earth which was objected to by Gurjant Singh. At that time Bir Singh was armed with a Soti and he inflicted injuries on the right index finger of Gurjant Singh and also on the left side of the back. Inderjit Singh – accused similarly pleaded false implication. 8. The accused examined DW-1 Major Singh and DW-2 Amrik Singh. 9. Learned trial Court after appreciating whole of evidence found the accused Gurjant Singh guilty under Sections 307 IPC, whereas accused Inderjit Singh was found guilty under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above. 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction but has submitted that occurrence relates to the year 1997 and since then the accused have been undergoing mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further submitted that accused Gurjant Singh has already undergone incarnation for a period of 11 months and 1 day, whereas accused Indjerjit Singh has undergone incarnation for a period of 6 months and 22 days during the period of trial and after conviction. It is further contended that they are on bail since the year 1999 and had settled in their lives. It is further contended that they are on bail since the year 1999 and had settled in their lives. It is further contended that this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 400 SB of 1997 titled as Gulzar Singh vs. State of Punjab, has reduced the sentence to already undergone for offence under Sections 307, 326, 325, 450/34 IPC. 12. I have considered the said submission made by counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record of the case. 13. So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court against both the appellants, is concerned, that is based upon ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence and as such the same does not call for any interference. Otherwise also, counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed. 14. Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, Gurjant Singh has undergone incarnation for a period of 11 months and 1 day and Inderjit Singh has undergone incarnation for a period of 6 months and 22 days, as per conviction slip placed on the file. The occurrence relates to the year 1997. The accused and the complainant are the real brothers. Both the appellants are facing trial for the last more than 13 years and the sword of litigation is hanging upon them since then. The accused are stated to be on bail since 1999 i.e. for the last more than 11 years and are stated to have been settled in their lives. So, keeping in view all the circumstances mentioned above, the sentence of the appellants stands reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 11 months and 1 day in respect of Gurjant Singh an 6 months and 22 days in respect of Inderjit Singh. The fine awarded by the trial Court stands enhanced by Rs.25,000/- more for each of the appellant in addition to the fine awarded by the trial Court. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- by each of the appellants be deposited with the trial Court within two months from today, failing which they may be called upon to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. The additional amount of fine i.e. Rs. 25,000/- each i.e. Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to Bir Singh – complainant, on realization. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- by each of the appellants be deposited with the trial Court within two months from today, failing which they may be called upon to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. The additional amount of fine i.e. Rs. 25,000/- each i.e. Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to Bir Singh – complainant, on realization. In case, Bir Singh is found to be dead, the said amount shall be disbursed to his legal heirs. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance. -----------0.N.K.0-----------