Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 529 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar Alias Dhariya v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-21

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar alias Dharyia were named as accused in case FIR No.204 dated 7.12.1995 registered at Police Station City Charkhi Dadri under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, who found them guilty for offence under Sec.324/34 and 307/34 IPC. Both the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sec.307 ipc, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment. They were also sentenced under Sec.324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Fir in the present case was lodged on basis of the statement made by Sunita daughter of Deep Chand. The statement of Sunita was recorded, when a ruqa of the doctor along with M. L. R. was received at Police Station City charkhi Dadri and thereafter ASI Om Parkash had gone to the Hospital. Statement of Sunita was recorded at Medical College, Rohtak on 6.12.1995 at 10.00 P. M. Statement has been exhibited as Ex. PW11/a, on basis of which FIR Ex. PW5/a was registered. Complainant Sunita was a student of B. A. Ist year at Saraswati college, Dadri. Complainant and her sister Papita were married at Birohad with jagdeep and Om Parkash. Complainant used to come to College from her in-laws house. The sister of complainant, Papita was having stomach ache and she was brought by the complainant for medical check up. At that time, Pawan younger brother of the husband of Sunita came there along with one young boy called dhariya. Pawan asked the complainant and her brother Sanjiv that he wanted to talk with them. Then they all went to the Gas Agency owned by one Jagdeep. Jagdeep is the brother of present appellant Pawan. His Gas Agency was situated in front of the Pratap Studio. In verandah of the shops, Pawan shook hand with sanjiv and gave two knife blows on the left side of stomach of Sanjiv. Another knife blow was given in the left side of the chest and one knife blow was caused on the left knee. When Pawan was causing injuries, Dhariya was holding the hands of Sanjiv. In verandah of the shops, Pawan shook hand with sanjiv and gave two knife blows on the left side of stomach of Sanjiv. Another knife blow was given in the left side of the chest and one knife blow was caused on the left knee. When Pawan was causing injuries, Dhariya was holding the hands of Sanjiv. The cause of grudge was that sister of the complainant papita had filed a divorce petition in the Court at Dadri but matter was compromised due to intervention of the Panchayat. Sanjiv was taken to the hospital, where statement of the complainant was recorded. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Bhiwani. 3. Appellant Pawan and Dhariya alias Vijay Kumar were charged by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani for offence under Sections 324/34 and 307/34 IPC for causing injuries to Sanjiv on 6.12.1995. 4. Dr. H. L. BENIWAL PW7 medico legally examined Sanjiv on 6.12.1995 at 12.45 P. M. and found the following injuries on his person:- "patient was conscious, BP 120/80 MM Hg. 1. An incised wound of 2 x 1 cm just above left inguinal ligament at middle, depth of wound not probed, profuse bleeding was present. 2. An incised wound 3 x 1 cm, depth not probed, just below left inguinal ligament at middle, red coloured fleshy structure "omentum" coming out of the wound, profuse bleeding was present. Advised surgeons opinion for injuries No.1 and 2 and advised x-ray abdomen. 3. An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm x muscle deep on medial aspect of left knee, fresh bleeding was present. 4. An incised wound of 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep on left lateral aspect of chest. Fresh bleeding was present, advised x-ray chest. " The Doctor had declared injuries No.3 and 4 as simple but other injuries were declared dangerous to life. Doctor further opined that these injuries could be caused with a knife Ex. P1. 5 Dr. PANKAJ Sharma PW8 deposed regarding admission of Sanjiv injured in Medical College, Rohtak on 6.12.1995 at 3.45 P. M. PW1 Dr. Rajnish Kumar stated that on 6.12.1995, he was posted as Registrar, Surgery at Medical college, Rohtak and he had operated upon Sanjiv. 6. Dr. P1. 5 Dr. PANKAJ Sharma PW8 deposed regarding admission of Sanjiv injured in Medical College, Rohtak on 6.12.1995 at 3.45 P. M. PW1 Dr. Rajnish Kumar stated that on 6.12.1995, he was posted as Registrar, Surgery at Medical college, Rohtak and he had operated upon Sanjiv. 6. Dr. RINKU Chaudhary PW3 had examined Sanjiv and found that there was no fracture. Anil Kumar, Draftsman PW4 had prepared the scaled site plan ex. PW4/b. PW6 SI Dharambir Dahiya submitted report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. . Naresh Kumar PW9 proved photographs Ex. P2 and negatives Ex. P3. 7. Sunita complainant appeared as PW11 and reiterated the version what was stated in the FIR. Sanjiv injured appeared as PW10 and deposed regarding the role assigned to the accused and injuries caused by them to him. 8. Pw12 Phul Chand is the witness to the recovery of knife Ex. P1. ASI om Parkash PW13 was the Investigating Officer and had deposed regarding various facets of the investigation. 9. Both the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. And they denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them. Dhariya alias Vijay kumar and Pawan Kumar impleaded false implication. No witness was examined in defense. 10. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 6.12.1995 at 11.30 A. M. at Dadri. Statement of Sunita was recorded at Medical College, rohtak at 10.00 P. M. Injured was taken from Dadri to Rohtak. Though the distance has not come on record, counsel for the appellants has stated that this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Dadri is situated at a distance of 90 Kilometers from Rohtak. 11. The first anxiety of Sunita, who was a girl aged 19 years, was to provide medical care to injured Sanjiv. Accused Pawan is brother of her husband. The very nature of injuries suffered by Sanjiv rule out any false implication, therefore, this Court can safely rely upon testimony of PW10 sanjiv and PW11 Sunita complainant. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that that in the present case, even though "omentum" had come out but injured had suffered from no permanent disability or damage to any internal organ. It was submitted that occurrence had taken place in 1995. This Court should consider reduction in the sentence as at the time of occurrence, appellant pawan Kumar was 19 years old. It was submitted that occurrence had taken place in 1995. This Court should consider reduction in the sentence as at the time of occurrence, appellant pawan Kumar was 19 years old. His elder brother was having matrimonial dispute with elder sister of complainant Sunita. It has been stated that when they met each other, on the spur of moment something may have happened, which led to causing of the injuries. Mr. Ghai has submitted that the complainant and the accused had shaken their hands. It is at that time, injured may have said something, which led to the incident. It is further submitted that no harm was caused to Sunita and Papita who were present at the spot. 12. I am of the view that regarding the quantum of sentence, the above said submissions can be given due credence. Appellants are in the corridors of the Courts for the last 14 years. Both the appellants were young lads, who could not comprehend consequences of their act. Long 14 years may have mellowed them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence is suitably reduced. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon appellant Pawan Kumar is reduced from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec.307 IPC. Vijay Kumar appellant had caused no injury, therefore, his sentence is reduced from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 307/34 IPC. With this modification in the order of sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.