Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 204 (PNJ)

Maharaj v. State of Punjab

2017-01-24

T.P.S.MANN

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: (Oral) - The appellants, namely, Maharaj, Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh were tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 307/326/323/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, convicted them under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years each. They were also convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention already spent by them during investigation and trial was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon them. 2. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants filed the present appeal, in which, notice was issued to the State and the trial Court record requisitioned. 3. According to the prosecution, on 3.7.2000, complainant Kuldip Singh alongwith his wife went to his in-laws house at Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. There, his brother-in-law Daljit Singh told him that his uncle Jagdish Singh was constructing his house in front of Bhinder Farm and though it had grown dark, he had not returned. Accordingly, the complainant alongwith Daljit Singh went on a scooter to inquire about the matter. At about 10.00 p.m., when they alongwith Jagdish Singh came out of their plot and electric light was on, Maharaj armed with kirpan, Kulwinder Singh armed with datar, Sukhdev Singh armed with a saria and Baljit Singh @ Dr. Balu armed with kirpan were standing there. 4/5 more persons were also standing behind them. Maharaj raised a lalkara that they want to get the house and shop vacated and they were doing so at the instance of Kuldip Singh. They would not get a better chance to eliminate them. Accordingly, Maharaj gave kirpan blows on the left side of the head and near the left ear of Kuldip Singh. Kulwinder Singh gave a datar blow on the back of his head. Sukhdev Singh gave two blows with a saria on his right shoulder and right hand. Baljit Singh @ Dr. Balu gave kirpan blow on his right wrist. The complainant raised an alarm and so did Daljit Singh and Jagdish Singh. All the assailants decamped from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. Sukhdev Singh gave two blows with a saria on his right shoulder and right hand. Baljit Singh @ Dr. Balu gave kirpan blow on his right wrist. The complainant raised an alarm and so did Daljit Singh and Jagdish Singh. All the assailants decamped from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. According to the complainant, the accused had caused injuries to him as there had been a dispute between his in-laws and the accused regarding the eviction of the shop and house and in that dispute, he was supporting his in-laws. 4. During the investigation of the case, complainant Kuldip Singh was medico-legally examined by Dr. Amarjit Singh, who found the following injuries on his person:- “1. 4 x 0.8 cm. incised wound was obliquely placed on left side of head 14.3 cms above mid of eye brow. Margins were found clean cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. 2.8 x 1 cm. incised wound was present on left side of face in front of ear, 2.5 cms above ear lobule. Margins were found clean cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 3. 5 x 1 cm. incised wound was obliquely placed on left side of back of head, 12 cms. above and behind margin of ear pinna. Margins were found clean cut. Fresh bleeding was present. 4. 2 x 1 cm. reddish bruise was present on top of right shoulder 11 cms. above anterior auxiliary fold. Local tenderness was present. 5. 7 x 0.3 cm. linear shape reddish abrasion was obliquely placed on back and medial aspect of right forearm 9 cms. above wrist. 6. Complained of pain on back of right hand and fingers. Local tenderness was present.” 5. Injuries no. 1 to 4 and 6 were advised X-ray, injuries No. 1 and 3 were also advised surgeon’s opinion whereas injury No. 5 was declared to be simple in nature. On the basis of radiological examination, in which, injury no.1 was found to contain fracture of left parietal bone, offence under Section 326 IPC was added to the FIR, which stood registered on the basis of statement made by complainant Kuldip Singh. Subsequently, offence under Section 307 IPC was also added as there was a possibility of injury No.1 being dangerous to life. 6. At the trial of the case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Dr. Subsequently, offence under Section 307 IPC was also added as there was a possibility of injury No.1 being dangerous to life. 6. At the trial of the case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Dr. Ramesh Chander, who deposed about the radiological examination of complainant Kuldip Singh, PW2 Rishi Ram, Draftsman, who proved scaled site-plan Ex.PB, complainant Kuldip Singh as PW3, Jagdish Singh as PW4 and Daljit Singh as PW5, who deposed about the ocular account, Dr. Amarjit Singh as PW7, who deposed about the medico-legal examination of complainant Kuldip Singh whereas the investigation part of the case was brought on record through the testimony of PW6 ASI Prabhjit Singh. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the trial Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, this Court finds that the prosecution had led cogent and convincing evidence to prove that it were the appellants, who had caused injuries to complainant Kuldip Singh. Complainant Kuldip Singh had stepped into the witness box as PW3 and testified about being assaulted by the appellants, who caused him as many as six injuries. His testimony stands corroborated by PW4 Jagdish Singh and PW5 Daljit Singh. Their testimonies are also corroborated by the medical-evidence by way of the testimonies of PW1 Dr. Ramesh Chander and PW7 Dr. Amarjit Singh. Further, during the investigation of the case, the investigating agency had collected sufficient material to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. As such, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Maharaj appellant had already served out the entire sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him and he was released on 23.1.2005 upon completion of his sentence and giving the benefit of Government remission and jail remission. It is further submitted that Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh have already undergone actual sentence of two years, one year eight months, and one year five months, respectively, including the remission earned by them. They are facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about seventeen years. None of them is either involved or convicted in any other case. They are facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about seventeen years. None of them is either involved or convicted in any other case. When they were heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, they had pleaded that they were to look-after their minor children and aged parents, as they were the sole bread winners of their respective families. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for setting aside the remaining sentences of imprisonment of Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh. 10. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellants had played active part in the commission of the crime resulting into complainant Kuldip Singh receiving six injuries on his person, out of which, injury No.1, which was on his head, was grievous in nature and, thus, dangerous to his life. 11. Custody certificates have already been brought on record by the learned State counsel. As per the same, Maharaj has already undergone the entire sentence awarded to him after being granted the benefit of remissions. Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh appellants have undergone one year eleven months and seven days, one year seven months and twenty three days and one year five months, respectively, out of the sentences of four years imposed upon them. None of them is shown to be either involved or convicted in any other case. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh appellants behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice shall be suitably met, if their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to the one already undergone by them. At the same time, they can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- each as fine, so that the same may be paid to the complainant, as compensation. 13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by Maharaj appellant is disposed of as infructuous. At the same time, the conviction of Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC are upheld. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to the one already undergone by them. 13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by Maharaj appellant is disposed of as infructuous. At the same time, the conviction of Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC are upheld. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to the one already undergone by them. They shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, which shall be deposited by them with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, within three months from today, failing which, they shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The fine amount, if deposited by Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh be disbursed in favour of complainant Kuldip Singh, as compensation. 14. The appeal of Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh is accordingly, disposed of.