Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 394 (PNJ)

Boota Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-03-01

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
Vijender Singh Malik, J.;— Boota Singh, the appellant has brought this appeal against the judgment of his conviction dated 07.09.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar for an offence punishable under sections 452 and 325 IPC and the order on sentence of the same date vide which he has been sentenced to undergo the following punishments, which were ordered to run concurrently:- The offence for which conviction was recorded. Sentence awarded 325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years. Fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months . 452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years. The case set up against the appellant by Police Station Kot Bhai, District Muktsar is as under:- Jasvir Kaur, complainant is a resident of village Lundewala. She is the wife of Nachhattar Singh, the injured. On 16.03.1998, at about 9.00 or 10.00 PM, she alongwith her husband and other members of her family was there at her house. They were talking with each other after taking meals. A lighted lantern was with them at that time. They heard someone using abusive language in the street. On hearing the same, Nachhattar Singh came out to see as to who was there. He saw accused Boota Singh there, who was abusing him. When Nachhattar Singh asked him as to the reason for abusing him , Boota Singh gave a blow with axe , which he was having in his right hand on the right side of Nachhattar Singh, as a result of which he fell down. The complainant and her son Megha Singh, who had also come out in the meanwhile, raised alarm, on account of which, the appellant ran away with his axe. Nachhattar Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha, where he was medicolegally examined. On information coming from the hospital, ASI Manjit Singh visited the hospital and applied for information to the doctor regarding fitness of Nachhattar Singh to make statement. Nachhattar Singh was declared unfit to make statement at 1.40 AM on 17.03.1998. Opinion was again sought in this regard at 10.00 AM on 17.03.1998. Still the injured was declared unfit to make statement. Nachhattar Singh was then referred to Medical College, Faridkot. Nachhattar Singh was declared unfit to make statement at 1.40 AM on 17.03.1998. Opinion was again sought in this regard at 10.00 AM on 17.03.1998. Still the injured was declared unfit to make statement. Nachhattar Singh was then referred to Medical College, Faridkot. Consequently, statement of the complainant Jasvir Kaur was recorded in which she narrated the aforesaid facts and had added thereto that Nachhattar Singh was the mediator in the marriage of Meeta Singh, a brother of the accused and Meeta Singh had separated from his family. Boota Singh was unhappy with the injured Nachhattar Singh because Meeta Singh had separated from the family. The statement of Jasvir Kaur was sent to the police station by Manjit Singh, ASI with his endorsement on which the case was registered. Manjit Singh, ASI then went to the spot and prepared a rough site plan thereof. Blood stained earth was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested. During custody, he was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement , in pursuance of which the axe alleged to be used in the occurrence was got recovered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and after preparing a rough sketch of the axe, it was taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. On completion of other formalities of investigation, challan against the appellant was prepared and presented in the court. Charge was framed against the accused for an offence punishable under sections 452 and 308 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all at the trial and gave up some witnesses namely Megha Singh, Nek Singh and Bhupinder Singh. After tendering report of Chemical Examiner, the evidence of the prosecution came to a close. The accused was examined thereafter in terms of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the truth of the prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. He has claimed himself to be innocent and has denied having caused any injury to Nachhattar Singh . According to him, Nachhattar Singh was rather under the influence of liquor and he had fallen from the roof of his house on account of darkness and suffered injuries. He has claimed himself to be innocent and has denied having caused any injury to Nachhattar Singh . According to him, Nachhattar Singh was rather under the influence of liquor and he had fallen from the roof of his house on account of darkness and suffered injuries. He has alleged that he prevented his brother Meeta Singh from selling his plot to the witnesses and on this grudge, this false case has been got registered against him. He has denied having made disclosure statement or to have got recovered any axe. In defence, he has examined Gurmit Singh, DW-1 and Meeta Singh, DW-2. Hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar had found the appellant guilty of committing the offence punishable under sections 452 and 325 IPC, vide judgment dated 07.09.2001. He had found no case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 308 IPC and had acquitted the accused of the charge under this section. Hearing on quantum of sentence was given on the same date and the sentence detailed as above was awarded to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, Boota Singh, appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard Mr. Surinder Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Grewal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. I have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he did not want to question the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under sections 452 and 325 IPC. He has no objection if the judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld. He has however made submissions on the quantum of sentence. According to him, the appellant is a poor labourer and the occurrence is about 14 years old. He has further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody in this case for more than three months and he prays for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant to the one already undergone by him. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no valid ground for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no valid ground for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant. According to him, if at all the same is to be reduced, the fine imposed upon the appellant may be enhanced and a portion of the same may be ordered to be given to the injured. After having been taken into the custody on 29.03.1998 the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on 02.07.1998 and was accordingly released from the custody on 03.07.1998. Apart from the fact that the appellant is shown to have remained in custody during trial for more than three months, it also shows that he is on bail from 03.07.1998 and till now he and the injured are living peacefully in the village. Learned State counsel admits that there is no report about the appellant engaging himself in any kind of criminal activities after being granted bail by this court. It has also to be kept in mind that the appellant had only given one blow with axe. He did not repeat the blow. In this very connection, it also has to be considered that he did not use the axe from the sharp side. He gave a blow with it from the blunt side. The very fact that he did not repeat the blow, would be a circumstance in favour of the appellant. The object of punishing an offender is to reform him. After staying in custody for more than three months, he appears to be a reformed person, who is peacefully co-existing with the injured for the last about 14 years. In these circumstances, I do not find any useful purpose to be served in making the appellant to again undergo imprisonment for any duration. Consequently, I find it a fit case where the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the one already undergone by him while simultaneously enhancing the fine so that a part of the same could be ordered to be paid to the injured so as to compensate him. Consequently, I find it a fit case where the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the one already undergone by him while simultaneously enhancing the fine so that a part of the same could be ordered to be paid to the injured so as to compensate him. Accordingly, I uphold the judgment of conviction of the appellant and partly accept his appeal by reducing the sentence to the one already undergone by him while enhancing the fine by Rs.10,000/-, payable by the appellant before the trial court within one month from today, out of which a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the injured Nachhattar Singh. If the enhanced amount of fine is not deposited by the appellant within the stipulated period, then the appeal shall be deemed to have dismissed and the sentence awarded by learned trial court shall stand confirmed.