Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 535 (PNJ)

Jagga Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-21

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by Jagga Singh son of Pala Singh. He was tried in case FIR No.88 dated 30.8.1996 registered at Police Station Jaitu under Sec.324/34 IPC and later offence under Sec.307 IPC was added. The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 1.6.1998 held appellant Jagga Singh guilty for offence under Sec.307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of statement ex. PF made by Sohan Singh injured to ASI Manjit Singh. The statement was made on 30.8.1996 at 11.15 A. M. at Guru Gobind Singh medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. ASI Manjit Singh received the information regarding admission of the injured and reached Hospital, after obtaining opinion from the doctor regarding fitnes of the injured, statement of sohan Singh injured was recorded. Sohan Singh stated that he is resident of jaitu and for earning his livelihood, he was maintaining a flock of sheep and goats. Accused Jagga Singh and his son Beera Singh were having their permanent residence at Jaitu. They were also having their house in the village at a short distance. Few days before the occurrence, Beera Singh had stolen the lamb and one cock belonging to the complainant. Complainant had gone to the house of jagga Singh and had made a protest. On 30.8.1996 at about 12.30 P. M. , Sohan singh and his wife Gurnam Kaur were lying in their Barra and were exchanging small notes, when Beera Singh empty handed and Jagga Singh armed with gandasa came there. Beera Singh raised a lalkara and Jagga Singh gave a gandasa blow from the right side which hit on the face of Sohan Singh above the cheek. Gurnam Kaur raised noise. Both the accused decamped from the spot along with the weapon. Cause of grudge stated was that complainant had protested regarding theft of lamb and cock. This was not relished by the accused, therefore, they with common intention came at the spot and caused injuries. On the basis of the statement Ex. PF made by Sohan Singh, formal FIR Ex. PF/3 was registered. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. Cause of grudge stated was that complainant had protested regarding theft of lamb and cock. This was not relished by the accused, therefore, they with common intention came at the spot and caused injuries. On the basis of the statement Ex. PF made by Sohan Singh, formal FIR Ex. PF/3 was registered. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. Beera Singh died during investigation, therefore, could not be put to trial. On 10.2.1997, additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot charged the appellant for offence under section 307 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Dr. SARBJIT Singh Sandhu PW2 medico legally examined the complainant on 30.8.1996 at 5.00 A. M. and found the following injuries on his person:- "1) Incised wound 13 x 3.5 cm on the left side of face placed transversely starting from 1 cm left of the nose upto left ear wound was bleeding profusely. X-ray was advised and injury was subjected to progress report (Starting from level of middle of the nose to the middle left ear) Wound was 1.5 cm below the left lower eye lid. " 4. After receipt of the x-ray report, vide supplementary report Ex. PC, the injury was declared grievous. 5. Dr. NAVKIRAN Kaur PW1 had radiologically examined Sohan Singh and stated that x-ray revealed fracture of left maxilla. PW3 Gurtej Singh, an employee of Municipal Committee, Jaitu produced certificate Ex. PE regarding death of co-accused Beera singh son of the appellant. 6. Injured Sohan Singh appeared as PW4 and reiterated what was stated in the FIR Ex. PF/3. In cross-examination, he stated that he identified the accused at the spot, when he started running after inflicting the injury. He further stated that his clothes were stained with blood and blood had also fallen on earth. Gurnam Kaur appeared as PW5 and corroborated the version of PW4. PW6 Manjit Singh ASI proved various aspects of the investigation. PW7 Dr. Manjit Singh proved admission of Sohan Singh in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital on 30.8.1996. ASI Sohan Singh PW8 after obtaining legal opinion had changed the offence from 326 IPC to 307 IPC and had arrested the appellant on 16.12.1996. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. All incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. 7. ASI Sohan Singh PW8 after obtaining legal opinion had changed the offence from 326 IPC to 307 IPC and had arrested the appellant on 16.12.1996. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. All incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded false implication. 7. The accused-appellant in defence examined DW1 Dhanna Singh. He stated that he was attracted at the time of occurrence at the spot, then Sohan singh had told that some body had stolen his lamb. Paramjit Singh DW2 stated that Jagga Singh was employed by him as a labourer on basis of sharing the crop and on the day of occurrence Jagga Singh was irrigating the fields and, thus, this witness was examined to plead alibi of accused Jagga Singh. 8. Mr. P. S. BRAR counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that appellant has caused only one injury, that too below the eye and injury had caused fracture of maxilla, therefore, no offence under Sec.307 IPC is made out, as Medical Officer has stated that injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature except for timely medical aid. Counsel has further submitted that appellant has not repeated the blow and only one injury was caused. He further submitted that on the day when charge was framed, appellant had given his age as 60 years, however, in judgment his age recorded is 50 years. It is submitted that charge was framed in February, 1997 and now the appellant is aged 63 years. Further more his only son had died during investigation, therefore, Court may also consider reduction in sentence in view of the fact that appellant had suffered pain and agony of protracted trial. Counsel further submitted that in the last 15 years, appellant had committed no offence. 9. In the present case from the nature of injury, offence under section 307 IPC is proved, furthermore intention of the appellant can be gathered from the testimony of the witnesses. Counsel further submitted that in the last 15 years, appellant had committed no offence. 9. In the present case from the nature of injury, offence under section 307 IPC is proved, furthermore intention of the appellant can be gathered from the testimony of the witnesses. However, taking into consideration various factors i. e. appellant had not repeated any blow, occurrence had taken place 13 years ago, appellant had committed no offence thereafter, son of the appellant had died, appellant is the only bread earner of the family and is aged about 63 years, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met, if sentence is suitably reduced. Therefore, the sentence is reduced from five years to 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, the appeal stand disposed of.