-1- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: January 25, 2010. Sarjeet Kaur and others ... Appellants. VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 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. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal has been filed by appellants Sarjeet Kaur, Lekh Ram alias Lekhu and Jaggu against the judgment of conviction dated 16.4.1999 and the sentence order dated 17.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, convicting and sentencing them under Section 307 read with Section 34 of of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code. For the -2- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. former offence, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month and for the latter offence they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for ten days. However, both the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.6.1996 at about 8 A.M, Peer Dhan (P.W.8) was brooming in his plot, which was in front of the house of appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Jaggu. In the meanwhile, appellant Sarjeet Kaur, while armed with a `Kulhari', appellant Lekh Ram, while armed with a `Lathi' and appellant Jaggu, came there. Accused-appellant Lekh Ram took Peer Dhan in his grip while appellant Sarjeet Kaur inflicted a `Kulhari' blow on his head. Appellant Lekh Ram gave a `Lathi' blow on the left side of the hip of Peer Dhan, who became unconscious on receipt of these injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by Mehar Singh (P.W.7) brother of Peer Dhan (P.W.8) while he was sitting on a cot in the nearby `Chappar' and he (Mehar Singh) raised `raula' for help. Many persons had thereafter collected at the spot. The bone of contention for the dispute is that in the evening of 11.6.1996, Peer Dhan (P.W.8) had an altercation with appellant Sarjeet Kaur over the wall, but the villagers had got the matter compromised. Peer Dhan was removed to Civil Hospital, Narnaul -3- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. for treatment in a bullock cart. As he was not in a condition to make statement before the police, Mehar Chand, brother of the injured, had got recorded his statement before Assistant Sub Inspector Mukesh Kumar (P.W.10), which led to the registration of the instant case against the accused-appellants. After completion of investigation and due formalities, challan against the accused-appellants was presented by the police before the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. Charge for the commission of offences under Sections 307/325/506/34 of the Code was framed against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, including Dr. Vinay Chaudhary (P.W.1), Dr. Satnarain Sharma (P.W.5), Dr. Rajiv Mangla (P.W.6), complainant Mehar Chand (P.W.7), Peer Dhan (P.W.8) and Assistant Sub Inspector Mukesh Kumar, Investigating Officer (P.W.10). In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication because of the dispute going on between them and the complainant party for the last many years over the `Guawara' which was adjoining the house of the complainant party. The accused examined Hawa Singh (D.W.1) in their defence, who stated his ignorance about the occurrence. -4- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Case of the prosecution as unfolded by Mehar Chand (P.W.7) and Peer Dhan (P.W.8) is that on the date of occurrence, Peer Dhan (P.W.8) was brooming in his plot in front of the house of appellant Sarjeet Kaur. Appellant Jaggu is the son of appellant Sarjeet Kaur. At that time, appellant Sarjeet Kaur, who was armed with a `Kulhari' and appellant Lekh Ram, who was armed with a `Lathi' came there. Appellant Jaggu was allegedly accompanying them. Accused- appellant Lekh Ram took Peer Dhan in his grip and appellant Sarjeet Kaur inflicted a blow with `Kulhari' on the head of Peer Dhan. In the meanwhile, appellant Lekh Ram gave a `Lathi' blow on the hip of Peer Dhan. After receiving the injuries, Peer Dhan became unconscious. It shows that appellant Jaggu did not do any overt act. It appears that his name has been included by the complainant while mentioning the names of the assailants before the police out of enmity between the parties, as is admitted by the accused while making statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the relations between the parties were inimical. In my considered view, the case of the prosecution against appellant Jaggu is not free from doubt and he is entitled to acquittal. However, so far as the participation of appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu in the crime is concerned, the same stands proved on record by the evidence furnished by Mehar Chand (P.W.7) and Peer Dhan -5- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. (P.W.8), who have given consistent version regarding the manner of assault. Both of them were subjected to searching cross- examination at the hands of defence counsel before the trial Court, but nothing favourable to accused-appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu could be elicited therefrom. It has come on record that there was enmity between the parties. However, enmity being a two pronged weapon, could be a reason for falsely implicating the accused and, at the same time, it could be a reason for the accused to give injuries to Peer Dhan. The evidence led by the prosecution shows that Peer Dhan was inflicted injuries because of inimical relations between the parties. Some discrepancies and inconsistencies are bound to occur when the witnesses depose in Court, but, when taking into consideration the entire evidence the case of the prosecution stands proved, such discrepancies and inconsistencies hardly affect the merits of the case, as in the present case. The evidence furnished by Mehar Chand (P.W.7) and Peer Dhan (P.W.8) gets corroboration from the statement of Dr. Vinay Chaudhary (P.W.1), Dr. Satnarain Sharma (P.W.5) and Dr. Rajiv Mangla (P.W.6). Dr. Satnarain Sharma (P.W.5) had medico- legally examined injured Peer Dhan and observed a lacerated wound in the inter-parietal region of scalp in the midline longitudinal, 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray of scalp was advised. Injured Peer Dhan complained pain in the left hip joint for which also X-ray was advised. Dr. Vinay Chaudhary (P.W.1) had radiologically examined -6- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. Peer Dhan in Civil Hospital, Narnaul, and had found fracture of skull in the parietal region. As the condition of Peer Dhan was serious, he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where he received further treatment. Dr. Rajiv Mangla (P.W.6) had also radiologically examined Peer Dhan and found fracture of left parieto temporal bone and left iliac bone. His report in this regard is Exhibit P.G. After going through this report, Dr.Satnarain Sharma opined that injury on the head of Peer Dhan was dangerous to life. His opinion in this regard is Exhibit P.F. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal qua appellant Jaggu is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua him are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. However, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge qua appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu. The same is accordingly upheld. So far as sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years awarded by the trial Judge to appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu under Section 307 of the Code is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to June, 1996, and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of these appellants for more than thirteen and a half years, the same is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- and the default clause under Section 307 of the Code shall remain unaltered. The sentence awarded to appellants Sarjeet Kaur -7- Criminal Appeal No.396-SB of 1999. and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu by the trial Court under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Code shall also remain unaltered. The impugned sentence order stands modified accordingly. The sentences awarded to the appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu under Sections 307 read with Section 34 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Code shall run concurrently. With this modification in the sentence order, this appeal qua appellants Sarjeet Kaur and Lekh Ram alias Lekhu is hereby dismissed. January 25, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE