Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 671 (PNJ)

Harminder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2011-03-01

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2011
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Harminder Singh is the solitary accused, who was tried in a case FIR No.217 dated 6.7.1999 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala under Section 307 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala vide its judgment dated 15.11.2002 held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The FIR Ex.PA/3 was registered on the basis of the statement Ex.PA made by injured-complainant-Rakesh Kumar PW1. In his statement, complainant stated that he was running a shop for selling the ice. On the night intervening 5/6-7-1999 at about 10.00 P.M., he after closing the shop was going to his house along with the Rehri for carrying the ice. When he reached near the Achar Bazar Mansa Devi, the accused came from the opposite side. Accused asked the complainant to stop. At that time he gave a straight knife blow in the stomach of the complainant, due to which he fell down on back side. The complainant made an attempt to stand up but he was given continuous blows with the knife. After giving the injuries, accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he again came back and gave blows on various parts of the body of the complainant. Complainant raised a noise `Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta which attracted Vishnu Sharma son of Sohan Lal Sharma and Sanjiv Sharma son of Lalit Sharma. On seeing the witnesses, the accused ran away from the spot. The cause of grudge was that accused used to take liquor in the Bazar and demanded ice without any payment. On refusal of the complainant to give the ice without money, accused was having a grudge. Complainant stated that occurrence was witnessed by Vishnu Sharma and Sanjiv Sharma. 3. The above-said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which on 15.5.2001 charged the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. Complainant stated that occurrence was witnessed by Vishnu Sharma and Sanjiv Sharma. 3. The above-said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which on 15.5.2001 charged the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. The charge stated that on 6.7.1999 at about 10.00 P.M. in the area of City Patiala, the accused caused injuries to Rakesh Sharma by means of knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances and by that act he would have caused the death of the complainant and would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence under Section 307 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 4. Rakesh Kumar complainant appeared as PW1 and reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.PA. His testimony has been duly corroborated by Vishnu Sharma PW6. 5. Injured Rakesh Kumar was medico legally examined by PW5 Dr.Devinder Kumar, Medical Officer, who found twelve injuries on various parts of his body. 6. Dr.Inderjit Sharma PW4 had conducted operation of injured Rakesh Kumar on 6.7.1999. From his operation notes, it has come in evidence that there was a serosal teer on the anterior wall of the stomach corresponding to injury No.1 and there was through and through perforation in the mesenteric border of jejunum, about 10 cm from the D.J. junction. There was a perforating injury in the transverse mesocolon and blood clots evacuated from the lesser sac and mesocolon was repaired. 7. Dr.Sanjay Dogra PW8 had conducted radiological examination of complainant Rakesh Kumar and found no bone injury. PW2 Dr.Sanjay Gupta had prepared the case summary of injured Rakesh Kumar on 17.7.1999. PW7 Teja Singh retired Sub Inspector proved various facets of the investigation. Indresh Khanna PW3 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PB of the spot. 8. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. 9. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as noticed in opening para of this judgment. 10. Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that even though Rakesh Kumar is the injured and appellant is the solitary accused, yet a material discrepancy has occurred in the evidence led by the prosecution. 10. Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that even though Rakesh Kumar is the injured and appellant is the solitary accused, yet a material discrepancy has occurred in the evidence led by the prosecution. It is stated that Rakesh Kumar in his testimony has stated that he had suffered 18 injuries, whereas from the medical evidence, it is apparent that he had suffered 12 injuries. Counsel states that there was a contradiction in the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. It is further stated that Vishnu Sharma had not witnessed the occurrence but later on he was added as a prosecution witness. 11. The arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant are not sufficient to demolish the case of the prosecution. Complainant Rakesh Kumar PW1 who was the injured would be the last person to substitute the accused. He had suffered 12 injuries. There was perforation in the mesenteric border of jejunum. There was perforating injury in the transverse mesocolon and blood clots were taken out, after anesthesia was administered, and the abdomen was opened. Had a timely medical aid not been provided to the injured, it would have caused his death. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the appellant is the sole accused. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court intends to rely upon the testimony of Rakesh Kumar PW1. Counsel for the appellant has stated that a period of more than 11 years has elapsed. The appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of the protracted trial. Counsel states that this may be construed as an aggravating and mitigating circumstance and sentence of the appellant be adequately reduced. Counsel states that the appellant has undergone 1 year and 1 month of his actual sentence. Therefore, he prays to this Court that sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 12. Sentencing is an onerous duty cast upon the Court. The Court has to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the present case, 12 knife blows were given to Rakesh Kumar. One blow was given on the neck and many blows were given in the stomach. Had a timely operation not been conducted, he would have lost his life. 12. Sentencing is an onerous duty cast upon the Court. The Court has to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the present case, 12 knife blows were given to Rakesh Kumar. One blow was given on the neck and many blows were given in the stomach. Had a timely operation not been conducted, he would have lost his life. The nature of injuries is to be construed as an aggravating circumstance and sufferance of protracted trial as one mitigating circumstance. However, to balance the equities, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence is suitably reduced. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default close are maintained. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the present appeal is dismissed.