Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 258 (UTT)

BALWANT SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2015-05-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) PW 1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging a complaint to the Incharge Police Station, Bazpur on 26.05.2002, enumerating the facts contained therein that on the selfsame date when he along with his elder brother Ranjeet Singh and his younger brother Satwant Singh were watching T.V. at their residence, Balwant Singh, Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh came outside their house at 11:05 a.m. The accused persons asked the informant and other family members to come out of their house. The informant along with other family members came out of the house. Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh threatened them with the dire consequences. Balwant Singh fired upon Ranjeet Singh with the intention of killing him. Ranjeet Singh sustained injuries at chin and neck. The informant and other family members somehow managed to escape. The family members of the informant saw the incident. 2. Chik FIR was lodged on the selfsame date i.e. 26.05.2002, at 4:20 p.m., at Bajpur. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was eight kilometer. Hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Balwant Singh (appellant), Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. While charges under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against accused persons Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh, charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused-appellant Balwant Singh, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Harvinder Kaur (informant), PW 2 Ranjeet Singh (injured), PW 3 Dr. G. S. Joshi (radiologist), PW 4 Dr. S. K. Chaudhary (Medical Officer) and PW 5 Ishwari Dutt Joshi (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW 1 Dr. Dijay Kumar Tilara (Medical Officer) was examined on behalf of the appellant Balwant Singh in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh were exonerated of the charges levelled against them. DW 1 Dr. Dijay Kumar Tilara (Medical Officer) was examined on behalf of the appellant Balwant Singh in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused Ram Singh and Chanchal Singh were exonerated of the charges levelled against them. Accused-appellant Balwant Singh was, however, convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo six month’s further rigorous imprisonment, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2003. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by the appellant. 3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1 Harvinder Kaur, who not only supported the prosecution story, but also proved her complaint (Ext. Ka-1) in her examination-in-chief. PW 2 Ranjeet Singh (injured) also supported the prosecution story. PW 3 Dr. G. S. Joshi, (radiologist) proved the x-ray report of the injured as Ext. Ka-2. 4. PW 4 Dr. S.K.Chaudhary, who examined the injuries of Ranjeet Singh (victim) on 26.05.2002, at 4:30 p.m., found following injuries on his person: (1) Gun shot wound of entry size 2 cm x 2 cm x depth u/o over lower part of left lateral aspect of neck , 2.5 cm away from supro sternal notch & 8 cm below left angle of mandible, margins inverted, shape rounded fresh bleeding present, blackening and tattooing present. This wound is surrounded by multiple gun shot would of entry of varying size ocening from .2 cm x .2 cm in an area of 10 cm x 9 cm are upper part of left side of chest margins converted, shape rounded, fresh bleeding present, blackening & tattooing present. Adv- x-ray neck including chest (2) Gun shot wound of entry size 2 cm x 2 cm x depth u/o are left side of chin, margins converted, rounded in shape, fresh bleeding + nt, blackening & tattooing. Adv- x-ray chin 5. PW 5 Ishwari Dutt Joshi was the investigating officer, who conducted investigation and after being satisfied that the accused persons committed the offence, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. PW 1 and PW 2 were cross-examined at length, much to the discomfiture of the accused-appellant. Adv- x-ray chin 5. PW 5 Ishwari Dutt Joshi was the investigating officer, who conducted investigation and after being satisfied that the accused persons committed the offence, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. PW 1 and PW 2 were cross-examined at length, much to the discomfiture of the accused-appellant. It is not necessary to reproduce herein the facts, which have come in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW 2, inasmuch as, the same have been described and discussed in the body of the judgment and order under challenge. The oral testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 has been corroborated by the evidence of PW 3, PW 4 (medical evidence) and PW 5 lends assurance of the prosecution story. 7. DW 1 examined the appellant on 26.05.2002 and found the following injuries on his person: (1) Lacerated wound of size 03.0 cm x 01.0 cm on middle of the scalp with fresh bleeding. (2) Abraded contusion of size 08.0 cm x 01.05 cm reddish colour, on anterio lateral aspect of Rt. Forearm. (3) Lacerated would of size 01.0 cm x 01.0 cm on left lower lip. (4) Lacerated wound of size 01.0 cm. x 01.0 cm over left middle left arm. Opinion: injury no. 1 is kept U.O. while other injuries are simple at nature. Injuries are caused by hard blunt object. Fresh duration. Patient is admitted & referred to surgeon. 8. DW1 also proved the injury report of the appellant as Ext. Kha-1. In this way, it is clear that the appellant also sustained injuries during the course of incident. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant remained in jail since 27.05.2002 to 28.03.2005. In this way, he remained in judicial detention more than two years and ten months. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the accused-appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 10. A criminal case was instituted against the informant and other family members, but that resulted in the acquittal. The certified copy of that judgment has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 11. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Awtar Singh, the real brother of Ranjeet Singh (injured). Paras 4 and 5 of the said affidavit are relevant for the decision of the present Criminal Appeal. The certified copy of that judgment has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. 11. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Awtar Singh, the real brother of Ranjeet Singh (injured). Paras 4 and 5 of the said affidavit are relevant for the decision of the present Criminal Appeal. The same are, therefore, being reproduced herein below for the convenience: “4. That it is stated here that victim Ranjeet Singh is now settled in England, is happily living his life, and the deponent is younger brother of Ranjeet Singh. He is stating on oath that his family members including his brother Ranjeet Singh and he himself now on date has no grudge against the appellant and the families of the appellant as well as the victim are living peacefully and have no ill feeling against each other. 5. That as of now, there is no dispute between the families of the victim and the appellant, thus it will serve no useful purpose to sent the appellant back jail to serve rest of the sentence and thus purely in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may pleased to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant to the period already undergone.” 12. Avtar Singh is also present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Milind Raj, Advocate. He had contacted his brother Ranjeet Singh (injured), who has now settled in England. Avtar Singh, on behalf of his brother, says that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone, inasmuch as, a compromise has taken place between the injured and the complainant. 13. This Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment and order dated 30.09.2003 in so far as the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is concerned. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the case against the appellant was proved beyond a shadow of doubt and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 30.09.2003 requires no interference. He, however, prays that considering the affidavit filed as above, the appellant’s sentence be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the case against the appellant was proved beyond a shadow of doubt and, therefore, the judgment and order dated 30.09.2003 requires no interference. He, however, prays that considering the affidavit filed as above, the appellant’s sentence be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 15. Considering the facts that the parties have entered into a compromise, the cross criminal case being 131 of 2008 was filed, in which, the injured & his family members have obtained acquittal, the injured and his family members have no grudge against the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant should be sentenced for the period ‘already undergone’ by him, while maintaining his conviction. 16. Criminal appeal preferred by the appellant is, therefore, allowed in part. The conviction awarded to the appellant Balwant Singh under Section 307 IPC is affirmed. The sentence awarded to him is, however, modified to the extent that he (Balwant Singh) shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone. The appellant shall also be liable to pay fine, which was awarded to him by the Court below. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that the fine shall be deposited within four weeks from today, failing which the appellant shall undergo six months’ further rigorous imprisonment. 17. With the directions as above, the Criminal Appeal is finally disposed of with the modifications in the sentence as above. Let the Lower Court Record be transmitted back for ensuring compliance.