-1- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001. Date of Decision: April 06, 2010. Devinder Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001. Ram Sarup ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001. Sohan Lal ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001. Bhagat Ram and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. Amrik Singh ... Petitioner -2- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the appellants. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the afore-stated four appeals and one revision petition as they arise out of the same First Information Report. Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64- SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 have been filed by appellants Devinder Singh, Ram Sarup, Sohan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Pammi against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, -3- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. Patiala, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with Section 149, 326, 326 read with Section 149, 324, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). Besides, accused-appellant Ram Sarup was also convicted and sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act (for short `the Act'). The maximum sentence awarded to appellant Ram Sarup is under Section 307 of the Code, which is rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months and maximum sentence awarded to appellants Devinder Singh, Sohan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Pammi is under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code, which is rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant Ram Sarup, under Section 25 of the Act was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences awarded to appellants Devinder Singh, Ram Sarup, Sohan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Pammi under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with Section 149, 326, 326 read with Section 149, 324, 324 read with Section 149 of the Code and to appellant Ram Sarup under Section 25 of the Act were ordered to run concurrently. -4- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001 has been filed by petitioner-injured Amrik Singh praying for enhancement of sentence awarded to appellants Devinder Singh, Ram Sarup, Sohan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Pammi for the aforesaid offences. The facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Sukhwinder Kaur has five sisters and four brothers. She and one of her sisters, namely, Rajinder Kaur are married with two brothers, namely, appellants Ram Sarup and Bhagat Ram, respectively. It was a `Raksha Bandhan' day on 21.8.1994. Amrik Singh (petitioner in Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001), brother of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur and Rajinder Kaur had visited them on that occasion. At about 10 P.M, when Amrik Singh was sitting with them, Ram Sarup (appellant), husband of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur, Bhagat Ram (appellant), husband of Rajinder Kaur and others, namely, Sohan Lal, Pammi and Devinder Singh (appellants) were standing outside. Appellant Ram Sarup called Amrik Singh outside. The complainant asked her husband appellant Ram Sarup as to what was the matter. The complainant and her sister Rajinder Kaur came out along with their brother Amrik Singh. On seeing Amrik Singh, accused Ram Sarup raised a `Lalkara' that he should not be allowed to go unscathed. Thereupon, appellants Ram Sarup and Bhagat Ram caught hold of Amrik Singh and took him towards `Goharas' i.e a place where cow dung-cakes are stored. The complainant and -5- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. Rajinder Kaur also ran after them. Appellants Ram Sarup and Bhagat Ram took out knives from their pockets and gave blows with the same in the abdomen of Amrik Singh. Appellant Sohan Lal took out a `Kirpan' from the `Gohara' and aimed a blow with it towards the head of Amrik Singh. However, Amrik Singh tried to save himself by putting forward his right hand. The blow hit his right hand. Accused-appellant Pammi gave a dagger blow on the right arm of Amrik Singh with its sharp side. Appellant Devinder Singh gave a `gandasi' blow with its sharp side on the head of Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh fell down. When he was lying down, all the accused gave further blows on his person with their weapons. The complainant raised `raula' whereupon all the accused ran away with their weapons. The motive for the attack, as per the complainant, was that a few days prior to the occurrence, there was a dispute between the complainant and her husband appellant Ram Sarup and she had gone to her parental house at Village Buraj Rathi. Her husband Ram Sarup came there with some other persons and an altercation had taken place between Amrik Singh and the accused. However, the matter was compromised. It was due to that reason that the accused had attacked the brother of the complainant when he came to her house with an intention to kill him. Intimation about the occurrence was sent to the police. -6- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. The police reached the spot and removed the injured to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, in a police vehicle. Injured Amrik Singh remained unfit to make statement till 5.9.1994. However, in the meanwhile, report (Exhibit P.G) had been lodged by the sister of the injured,namely, Sukhwinder Kaur (complainant) wife of accused-appellant Ram Sarup, whereupon the instant F.I.R was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented against the accused in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge for the afore-mentioned offences was framed against the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar (P.W.1), Dr. Shingara Singh (P.W.2), Dr. M.S. Randhawa (P.W.3), complainant Sukhwinder Kaur (P.W.4), injured Amrik Singh (P.W.5), Jaswant Singh, Halqa Patwari (P.W.6), Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Tilak Raj (P.W.7), Dr. Rajinder Singh (P.W.8), Head Constable Parkash Singh (P.W.9) and Constable Darshan Singh (P.W.10). In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication on account of the -7- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. strained relations with the family of the injured and had taken a `Panchayat' to the house of the injured for bringing back complainant Sukhwinder Kaur, wife of accused-appellant Ram Sarup. The accused examined Head Constable Harbans Singh (D.W.1) and Constable Surmukh Singh (D.W.2). After considering the ocular as well as medical evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as afore-mentioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the case, the ocular version is consisted of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur (P.W.4) and her brother injured Amrik Singh (P.W.5). Both of them supported the prosecution version, as narrated above. Complainant Sukhwinder Kaur has even deposed against her husband Ram Sarup (appellant) and Bhagat Ram (appellant), who is husband of Rajinder Kaur, real sister of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur. Appellants Ram Sarup, Bhagat Ram and Sohan Lal are real brothers. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have admitted that there were strained relations with the family of the injured, who is none else than the real brother-in-law (wife's husband) of appellants Ram Sarup and Bhagat Ram. Complainant Sukhwinder Kaur would be the last person to falsely implicate the accused persons as they include -8- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. her husband, her sister's husband and her husband's brother. Injured Amrik Singh had sustained as many as sixteen injuries on his person, out of which injury No.12 was opined to be dangerous to life. The occurrence took place on 21.8.1994. Injured Amrik Singh remained unfit to make statement till 5.9.1994. It was after waiting for the injured to become fit to make statement so that his version could be recorded first that the police proceeded to record report (Exhibit P.G) of complainant Sukhwinder Kaur. In her report (Exhibit P.G) on the basis of which the instant First Information Report (Exhibit P.G/2) was registered, complainant Sukhwinder Kaur gave the details of the occurrence and had named each and every accused involved in the occurrence along with the injuries caused by them on the person of the injured. It was on account of the fact that injured Amrik Singh had been brutally attacked by the accused and he was in a serious condition in the hospital that some delay occurred in the registration of the instant case. The delay, as such, has not remained unexplained on record. Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar (P.W.1), Dr. Shingara Singh (P.W.2), Dr. M.S. Randhawa (P.W.3) and Dr. Rajinder Singh (P.W.8) have furnished medical evidence in this case. Dr.Sukhcharan Singh Brar (P.W.1) had conducted medico-legal examination of injured Amrik Singh. As mentioned above, injured Amrik Singh -9- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. had been found to have sustained sixteen injuries on his person. As per opinion Exhibit P.C/1 on police request, Dr. Sukhcharan Singh Brar (P.W.1) had declared injuries Nos. 6, 8 and 10 as grievous in nature. Dr. Shingara Singh (P.W.2) had conducted X- ray examination of the injured. Injury No.12 on the person of Amrik Singh was opined dangerous to life. For coming to a conclusion whether the offence under Section 307 of the Code has been committed by the culprit, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing the death should have been inflicted by the accused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, yet such intention can also be deduced from other circumstances. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in Section 307 of the Code. An attempt need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. The facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, leave no room for doubt that the accused had the intent to cause the murder of Amrik Singh. They had attacked the victim with deadly weapons like knives, `gandasi' and kirpan. In fact, -10- Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001. learned counsel for the accused could not pose any serious challenge to the veracity of the prosecution version. For the aforesaid reasons, conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences, as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. The sentence awarded to the appellants commensurates with the offence committed by them. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.64-SB of 2001, Criminal Appeal No.221-SB of 200 and Criminal Appeal No.257-SB of 2001 filed by appellants Devinder Singh, Ram Sarup, Sohan Lal, Bhagat Ram and Pammi are dismissed. Resultantly, Criminal Revision No.325 of 2001 filed by injured Amrik Singh for enhancement of sentence of the appellants for the aforesaid offences is dismissed. April 06, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE