Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.160-SB of 2001 Date of decision:6.1.2011 Tara Singh ... Appellant versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Tara Singh filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.1.2001 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No.32 of 17.10.1997 arising out of FIR No.120 dated 19.6.1997 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Jagraon. By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 307 IPC and directed to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.6.1997, Gajjan Singh, complainant, reported to SI Darshan Singh, Incharge, Chowki Man, that he was going to his Village Sohian after duty. On the way, Nirmal Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, serving as Sub Inspector in Soil Conversation Department, met him and they were going to their village while talking with each other. At about 7.45 PM, they were near the house of Harvinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, then sighted Tara Singh while carrying a rambi in his right hand. Nirmal Singh was ahead of him. After crossing him, Tara Singh Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 2 gave blow in the chest of Nirmal Singh. He raised hue and cry. Jagmohan Singh came at the spot and witnessed the entire incident. On receipt of injury, Nirmal Singh fell down and was profusely bleeding. After causing injury, Tara Singh had fled away from the spot with weapon. Nachhattar Singh, father of Nirmal Singh, also came at the spot. He along with Nachhattar Singh had shifted Nirmal Singh to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. After recording statement of Gajjan Singh, same was read over and explained to him, who signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. SI Darshan Singh along with police party had gone to the spot and after inspecting the spot prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Brick bats stained with blood were lifted from the spot and made into a sealed parcel with seal bearing impression `JS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Blood stained clothes worn by the injured were also taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Application was moved requesting the doctor to report as to whether Nirmal Singh was fit to make statement or not. On 21.6.1997, Nirmal Singh was declared fit to make statement. Then his statement was recorded. On 2.7.1997, accused was arrested. On 3.7.1997, he suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered rambi from the specified place. Weapon recovered was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 3 Court. Accused was charged under Section 307 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW1 Dr.Harinder Sharma on 18.6.1997 at 9.05 PM has medico legally examined Nirmal Singh and found the following injury on his person:- “1. Incised wound, longitudinal in position, 3 cm x 0.2 cm wide on front of chest to left of mid line in third, fourth and fifth inter costal space. Depth was kept under observation. Advised x-ray examination. Bleeding was present.” Injury was kept under observation, which was found to be dangerous to life. PW2 Dr. Raj Kumar Garg stated that on 23.6.1997, he has x- rayed the injury on the person of Nirmal Singh. Effusion on left side of chest was noticed but no bone injury was detected. Injury was dangerous to life. PW3 Gajjan Singh is the complainant eye witness. He has supported the version of Nirmal Singh, injured, who appeared as PW4, by saying that on 18.6.1997 at about 7.45 PM, when they were near the house of Harvinder Singh, then Tara Singh came from back side, armed with a rambi. After crossing him (Gajjan Singh), he (Tara Singh) had given blow in the chest of Nirmal Singh. Nirmal Singh was shifted to the hospital, where he was medico legally examined. PW4 Nirmal Singh, injured, has also supported the version of Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 4 Gajjan Singh by saying that when they were present near the house of Harvinder Singh, then Tara Singh came and gave blow in his chest. PW5 SI Jagir Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW6 Constable Bahadur Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PW6/A). PW7 Gurtej Singh Khera, Draftsman, prepared scaled site plan (PW7/A). After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that case is false. In defence, DW1 Nazar Singh appeared and stated that Nirmal Singh is an addict. Whenever he came from duty, he was found under the influence of liquor. Tara Singh was implicated on the basis of misguided suspicion. On the request of Tara Singh, there was a Panchayat and the Panchayat came to this conclusion that case is false. Then Nirmal Singh agreed not to prosecute this case. There was a compromise (Ex.DA), signed by Nirmal Singh, Tara Singh and Gajjan Singh. He had also signed the compromise. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. Learned defence counsel for the appellant after arguing for some time, when failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 5 impugned judgment, then stated that parties effected compromise. Only one injury was noticed on the person of Nirmal Singh. Appellant has already undergone 8 months and 15 days out of actual sentence of 4 years. Before present occurrence, there was no previous enmity amongst the appellant and the injured. Requested to take a lenient view. Learned State counsel argued that no doubt, only one injury was noticed on the person of Nirmal Singh but injury was dangerous to life. Written compromise is on the file but injury was on the vital part and this fact is clear from the statement of PW1 Dr. Harinder Sharma. Undisputedly, learned defence counsel for the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and only requested that lenient view may be taken in view of the compromise, even then I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether occurrence has taken place as per story. Nirmal Singh, injured, appeared as PW4 and stated that on 18.6.1997 at about 7.45 PM, he along with Gajjan Singh was present near the house of Harvinder Singh. He was ahead of Gajjan Singh. Tara Singh came from the back side armed with a rambi. After crossing Gajjan Singh, Tara Singh gave blow in his chest. Raula was raised. After causing injury, Tara Singh had fled away from the spot with weapon. He was shifted to the hospital, where he was medico legally examined. PW3 Gajjan Singh is the complainant eye witness. He has supported the version of injured by saying that appellant has caused injury to Nirmal Singh. PW1 Dr. Harinder Sharma has medico legally examined Nirmal Singh and found one injury in his chest. Injury was kept under observation. Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 6 PW2 Dr. Raj Kumar Garg has x-rayed the injury and injury was found to be dangerous to life. Appellant was arrested and on interrogation, suffered disclosure statement. In pursuance of disclosure statement, he got recovered rambi from the specified place. Weapon recovered was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses, after making the same into a sealed parcel. Blood stained clothes worn by the injured were also taken into police possession. Clothes and weapon recovered were sent to the laboratory. In view of the statements of injured and eye witness, coupled with the statements of the doctors, I am of the opinion that appellant had caused injury armed with a rambi. DW1 Nazar Singh appeared in Court and stated that there was a compromise amongst the parties and compromise (Ex.DA) is on the file. As per compromise, there is not a word that no injury was caused by the appellant. Compromise (Ex.DA) was signed by the appellant, injured, eye witness and other respectables of the village. Occurrence is dated 18.6.1997. At that time, appellant was 65 years' old. He is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. He is the sole bread winner of his family. He is to support his handicapped son, who is a patient of leprosy. According to custody certificate, appellant has already undergone 8 months and 15 days out of actual sentence of 4 years. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken, because parties had effected compromise. Appellant and the injured are from the same village and they are residing peacefully. Otherwise, there are Crl.Appeal No. 160-SB of 2001 7 chances of further litigation. In view of all discussed above, appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (8 months and 15 days). Fine maintained. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. 6.1.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE