Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) Crl.A. No.S-1457 SB of 2003(O&M) Date of decision : 12.11.2013 [ENTITY] and others Appellants vs. [ENTITY] Respondent 2) Crl. R. No. 1897 of 2003(O&M) [ENTITY] Petitioner vs. [ENTITY] and others Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the appellants. Sh. [ENTITY], Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the revisionist. [ENTITY], J.
Vide this judgment, two cases, bearing [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] and other vs. [ENTITY] and [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] and others, are being disposed of as both of them have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Sh. [ENTITY], Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur.
The law was set in motion by recording the statement of [ENTITY] injured, who has stated that he was working as Manager of Dhuri Sugarcane Growers Co-operative Society Limited, Dhuri. On 3.6.1997 [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] and nephew of [ENTITY] came to his house at about 8.00 A.M. and told him that he has been called by his uncle [ENTITY]. Thereupon [ENTITY] accompanied him to village Ghanauri on his scooter and they reached the house of [ENTITY]. There [ENTITY] accused asked [ENTITY] as to what had happened yesterday, upon which [ENTITY] replied that his votes were less and therefore, resolution was passed against him. [ENTITY] than asked [ENTITY] as to why he had not gone to Chandigarh. [ENTITY] replied that Directors had told him that there was no need for him to go to Chandigarh. [ENTITY] told that [ENTITY] should have cancelled the meeting. [ENTITY] replied that there was no reason to cancel the meeting. In the meantime, at about 9.00 A.M. [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] reached there. All the three accused started giving fist blows to [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] gave a fist blow on the left ribs and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] brought iron rods from inside. [ENTITY] gave rod blow on the left leg and left elbow of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] gave a dang blow on right elbow and [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] gave rod blow on his right thigh. In the meantime, [ENTITY] brother of [ENTITY], Ex Sarpanch reached there and he rescued [ENTITY] from the clutches of the accused. However, out of fear [ENTITY] then went to his house. [ENTITY] accused and son of [ENTITY] brought [ENTITY] to Civil Hospital, Sherpur in a Matador, where his signatures were obtained on some papers when he was unconscious. Then both the accused took the injured to [ENTITY] who practises as Doctor at Dhuri, where [ENTITY] was present and he got [ENTITY] admitted in Civil Hospital, Dhuri, where his statement was recorded.
After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of documents were supplied to them as provided under [SECTION] [ACT]
Since one of the offence complained of was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charge under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] was framed, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of accused examined PW-1 Dr. [ENTITY], who proved the MLR, PW-2 Dr. [ENTITY], who proved X-Ray, PW-3 Dr. [ENTITY], PW-4 [ENTITY], PW-5 [ENTITY], PW-6 ASI [ENTITY] , PW-7 [ENTITY], PW-8 [ENTITY], PW-9 Constable Gian [ENTITY], PW-10 [ENTITY], PW-11 [ENTITY], PW-12 [ENTITY], PW-13 [ENTITY], PW-14 [ENTITY] - complainant, PW-15 ASI [ENTITY] and closed the prosecution evidence.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under [SECTION] [ACT] and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied. They have pleaded that [ENTITY] received injuries in an accident. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] admitted him in Civil Hospital, Sherpur, where he gave statement to the doctor that injuries were the result of accident and he does not want any action and the case has been planted upon them. They were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 Dr. [ENTITY], Medical officer, PHC Sherpur and DW-2 [ENTITY], Pharmasist.
Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-
Name of the convict U/s Sentence [ENTITY] @ Avtar [ENTITY] [SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. [SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 1 year [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 9 months [SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 9 months Name of the convict U/s Sentence [ENTITY] [ACT] To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 1 year [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 9 months [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 9 months [ENTITY] [SECTION]/25 [ACT] To undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. [SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 1 year [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] To undergo RI for 9 months [SECTION]/[SECTION] To undergo RI for 9 months
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 31.7.2003 passed by Sh. [ENTITY], Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur, the accused appellants have preferred [CASE NUMBER], whereas [ENTITY] injured has preferred [CASE NUMBER] for convicting the appellants under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT].
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the prosecution, [ENTITY], brother of the complainant [ENTITY] had witnessed the occurrence but he has not been examined. The prosecution has examined PW-13 [ENTITY]. Name of this witness is not mentioned in the FIR. He has been made up a witness just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. DW- 1 Dr. [ENTITY] has categorically stated that injuries received by the complainant were result of fall. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have accompanied the injured to the hospital. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.
[ENTITY] is the injured witness and he has supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. He was cross examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard his sworn testimony. The injuries sustained by [ENTITY] are duly reflected in his Medico Legal Report. There was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused and to allow the actual culprit to go scott free. The manner of incident propounded by the accused is not possible. DW-1 Dr. [ENTITY] has stated that injuries received by the complainant are the result of fall. Mere fact that [ENTITY] has accompanied the injured to the hospital is not a ground to discard the prosecution story. The accused have been convicted under [SECTION] [ACT] also for wrongfully confining him. Mere fact that name of [ENTITY] is not mentioned in the FIR and that [ENTITY] brother of the complainant has not been examined, does not create dent in the prosecution story. It is not the quantity of witnesses but quality of witnesses, which matters in the criminal cases. The conviction can be maintained on the sole testimony of complainant. The complainant is an injured witness and his presence cannot be doubted.
So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] does not call for any interference.
Learned counsel for the complainant-revisionist has submitted that offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] is also made out against the accused. However, counsel for the revisionist could not point out any material evidence from which the offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] are made out against the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in case the Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the appellant in respect of their acquittal, in that case lenient view be taken regarding quantum of sentence.
All the three appellants have already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 19 days out of their substantive sentence. Appellant [ENTITY] is about 64 years old. He is suffering from diabetes and due to diabetes his leg has to be amputated. Age of appellant [ENTITY] has also been mentioned as 22 years in the judgment of the trial Court. The occurrence has not taken place by premeditation. Only one grievous injury falling within the ambit of [SECTION] [ACT] has been attributed to each of the appellants [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. They are not the previous convicts and are not facing trial in any other case. They have already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 months and 19 days each. The occurrence relates to more than 16 years back. The complainant can be compensated with the costs, as provided under [SECTION] [ACT] To support this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following authorities:-
1. [ENTITY] and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir [ENTITY] 1988 (2) RCR (Criminal) 394;
2. [ENTITY] vs. State of Goa and others 2012 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 285;
3. [ENTITY] vs. State of Haryana 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 109;
4. [ENTITY] and others vs. State of Haryana 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 502;
5. [ENTITY] and others vs. State of Haryana 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623;
6. [ENTITY] etc. vs. Punjab State 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 239;
7. [ENTITY] vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 358;
8. [ENTITY] and others vs. [ENTITY] 2003 (3) AICLR 400;
9. [PRECEDENT];
10.[ENTITY] vs. State of U.P. 1998 SCC (Cri) 603 and
11.Baldev [ENTITY] vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) RCR (Criminal) 566.
It is further submitted that in authority in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of this Court, vide which the benefit of probation was extended to the accused in respect of offence under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that appellants are not entitled to the concession of probation or reduction of sentence. Prayer has also been made by him to grant compensation to the injured.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for both the sides regarding quantum of sentence and grant of compensation under [SECTION] [ACT]
The Hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), affirmed the order of this Court dated 13.11.1984 vide which the accused appellants have been extended the benefit of probation in respect of their conviction under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. In the said case also accused were acquitted under [SECTION] [ACT] and were convicted under [SECTION]. [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. This Court granted the concession of probation and also directed them to pay compensation to the injured.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) converted the sentence of the accused under [SECTION] [ACT] to [SECTION] [ACT] and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone after awarding compensation. The incident in that case had taken place 15 years back.
In [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) the benefit of probation for offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was allowed, where the occurrence had taken place 14 years back and there was no dispute between the parties thereafter.
In [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) also this Court granted the benefit of probation for offence under [SECTION] [ACT] after granting compensation to the injured.
In [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), [ENTITY] case (Supra) and [ENTITY] case (Supra), this Court allowed the concession of probation in respect of offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY]'s case (Supra) reduced the sentence in respect of offence under [SECTION] [ACT] to the period already undergone where the sentence awarded was 3 years. So, keeping in view, the ratio of abovesaid authorities and that [ENTITY] - appellant has become handicapped and that [ENTITY] was of young age at the time of occurrence, the sentence of all the appellants stands reduced to the period already undergone, which is 2 months and 19 days as per the conviction slip. Otherwise also, as per the conviction slip the accused are not facing trial in any other case and are on bail for the last about 16 years and they must have settled in their lives.
In this case [ENTITY] complainant has suffered 2 fractures i.e. one of the left leg and another of 6-7 ribs, besides other simple injuries. So, each of the appellant is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant [ENTITY]. The said amount shall be deposited within two months from today before the trial Court for disbursement of the same to the complainant [ENTITY], if alive. In case of his death, this amount shall be paid to his legal heirs. In case the amount of compensation as mentioned above is not deposited within two months from today, in that case, the appellants shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
The appeal, as well as, the revision petition stand disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( [ENTITY] ) 12.11.2013 Judge chugh