Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 634 (PNJ)

Raj Pal v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-27

HARBANS LAL

body2010
Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2002/order of sentence dated 20.9.2002 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby he convicted and sentenced Raj Pal accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a further direction that the amount of fine shall be paid to Gurnam Singh injured as compensation and acquitted the accused of the other offences. 2. Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.2.2002 at about 7.00 a. m. Gurnam Singh son of Jinda Ram had gone to ease himself on tubewell situated in his fields. In the meanwhile, Raj Pal accused came from the side of village Harnauli. As soon as, he reached near Gurnam Singh, he took out the gandasi from the fold of his blanket with which he had covered his body and delivered a gandasi blow, which landed on the back side of head of Gurnam Singh, who took turn. The accused dealt another blow which rested on the front side of the head of Gurnam Singh, who fell down on the ground and in a bid to save himself, he raised his hands. The accused caused injuries on his hands as well as arm due to which, one of his finger was also cut. On being raised alarm Jinda Ram came at the spot. On catching his sight, the accused decamped from the spot with his weapon while leaving behind a threat that today he has been saved, but he would be taught a lesson on some other day. The case was registered. In due course, the accused was put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Sec.307/506 I. P. C. , to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Rameshwar Dass S. I. , PW-2 Abey Ram HC, PW-3 Raj kumar Patwari, PW-4 Dr. The accused was charged under Sec.307/506 I. P. C. , to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Rameshwar Dass S. I. , PW-2 Abey Ram HC, PW-3 Raj kumar Patwari, PW-4 Dr. Mamta Goel, PW-5 Ayub Khan, PW-6 Ilam Chand, PW-7 Jinda ram complainant-father of the injured, PW-8 Gurnam Singh injured, PW-9 Swaran ram HC Investigator and closed its case. 3. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. He has come up with the following plea:- "I did not cause any injury to Gurnam Singh. Rather he received injuries in a fight with some body-else outside the village. Injured had teased my wife about a week before this occurrence and hot words were exchanged and I also convened a panchayat and hence he was having grudge against me and falsely implicated me in this case. I also did not suffer any disclosure statement and did not get any gandasi recovered." He did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4 After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by the learned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the learned trial Court. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been facing the agony of trial since 2002 and that being so, the sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. 5. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the appellant has undergone 2 years 1 month and 23 days of the actual sentence. I have well considered this submission. 5. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the appellant has undergone 2 years 1 month and 23 days of the actual sentence. The appellant while on bail during the pendency of this appeal did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the already undergone (2 years 1 month and 23 days). With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed.