Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1239 (HP)

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh

2018-07-06

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - Both respondents-accused stand served with bailable warrants issued against them on the previous date. They have also furnished the bail bonds as directed. 2. In this petition, judgment dated 27.6.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal (RBT) No. 78-K/X/14/12 is under challenge. As a matter of fact, learned lower Appellate Court though has upheld the findings of conviction recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II), Kangra, district Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 114- II/2003, however, while setting aside the substantive sentence passed against each of them maintained the sentence of fine. Learned trial Court has held both respondents-accused guilty under Sections 323, 325 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay Rs. 500/- each as fine for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and pay Rs. 1000/- each as fine for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay Rs. 500/- each as fine for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, meaning thereby that the maximum sentence awarded against the respondents-accused is three months each. 3. Now if coming to the manner in which the occurrence took place, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.2003 around 1:30 P.M. at Sarta, Thesil and District Kangra, H.P. the complainant Rabbir Singh (PW1), real brother of accusedrespondent No. 1 Jeet Singh was cultivating his land. His wife Sandhya Devi (PW4) and son Sanjeev Kumar (PW5) were also present there. The accused-respondents accompanied by their co-accused Asha Devi (acquitted of the charge) allegedly appeared there and started hurling abuses to the members of the complainant party. The accused party allegedly were claiming the land being cultivated by the complainant to be there. The complainant when asked the accused persons not to abuse the latter, they started administering beating to the complainant party. Accused-respondents Amar Singh allegedly dealt a blow with pick-axe on the head of Sandhya Devi (PW4). Accused Asha Devi inflicted a danda blow to PW1 Ranbir. The complainant when asked the accused persons not to abuse the latter, they started administering beating to the complainant party. Accused-respondents Amar Singh allegedly dealt a blow with pick-axe on the head of Sandhya Devi (PW4). Accused Asha Devi inflicted a danda blow to PW1 Ranbir. Accused Amar Singh also dealt a blow on the hand of Sanjeev Kumar PW5 with pick-axe. Besides the members of complainant party were threatened to do away with their lives. 4. The matter was reported to the police and on completion of investigation challan filed against the accused persons in the trial Court. Learned trial Judge on holding full trial has acquitted accused Asha Devi, however, convicted the accused-respondents in this petition and also sentenced them in the manner as pointed out at the outset. 5. On going through the record of this case, it is apparent that both parties are closely related to each other. The accused-respondent No. 1 and the complainant are real brothers. The occurrence took place on account of dispute of land which was being cultivated by the complainant party because both parties were claiming to be owner in possession thereof. There was no intention to cause injury to the members of the complainant party. The quarrel took place on the spot on account of the heat generated on each side. Learned trial Court has convicted the accused-respondents and also sentenced them. The maximum sentence as pointed out hereinabove is three months. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also upheld the findings of the conviction recorded against each of the accused-respondents. It is, however, the sentence which has been modified as instead of putting the respondents-accused behind bar to serve out the sentence, the sentence of fine has only been maintained. The accused-respondents have not preferred any appeal/revision etc. It is, however, the petitionerState which has filed this petition aggrieved by the modification of the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 6. As a matter of fact, no ground for interference is made out because learned lower Appellate Court on consideration of the given facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record has rightly modified the sentence passed against each accused persons. However, the fine imposed against the accused-respondents should have been enhanced and ordered to be paid as compensation to the victims of the occurrence complainant Ranbir Singh PW1, his wife Sandhya Devi PW4 and son Sanjeev Kumar PW5. However, the fine imposed against the accused-respondents should have been enhanced and ordered to be paid as compensation to the victims of the occurrence complainant Ranbir Singh PW1, his wife Sandhya Devi PW4 and son Sanjeev Kumar PW5. The impugned judgment, as such, is modified and instead of Rs. 500/- each under Section 323 IPC, Rs. 1000/ each Under Section 325 IPC and Rs. 500/ each under Section 506 IPC the accused-respondents are sentenced to pay Rs. 1000/-each, Rs. 5000/-each and Rs. 5000/- each for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC respectively. In default to deposit the amount of fine within two months, the sentence including substantive sentence passed against each of the accused persons shall stand revived and they shall surrender before learned trial Court to serve out the sentence. The amount of fine awarded against each of them, if deposited already, shall be adjusted while depositing the amount in terms of this judgment. Since the complainant PW1 Ranbir Singh is stated to have expired, therefore, out of the amount of fine Rs. 20,000/- be paid to PW4 Sandhya Devi as compensation for herself and on behalf of PW5 Sanjeev Kumar, her son. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.