Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 Date of decision: July 08, 2010 Rajinder Singh and another …..APPELLANTS Versus State of Punjab …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr H.S.Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): Vide judgment and order dated 28.9.1997, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicted the appellants under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellants were also convicted under Section 427 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -2- Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, as recorded by the trial Court, the appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeal. According to the prosecution, complainant Kiratpal Singh was an income tax practitioner. He had two brothers, namely, Pritpal Singh, who was also an income tax practitioner and appellant Rajinder Singh, who was carrying on his own business. Complainant Kiratpal Singh, alongwith his family resided in Kennedy Avenue, Amritsar. In the same kothi his two brothers also resided. In 1974, the complainant separated from his brothers and, thus, Pritpal Singh and Rajinder Singh became joint owners of the said kothi. In 1977, Rajinder Singh and Pritpal Singh effected partition of the kothi between themselves and by taking his share, Rajinder Singh separated from Pritpal Singh. Rajinder Singh kept his residence in two rooms in the kothi in question. On 11.1.1994 at about 5.30 PM, complainant Kiratpal Singh was present in his house. A truck loaded with sand was brought by Pritpal Singh and when he tried to unload the truck, appellant Gurdip Singh son of Rajinder Singh asked him that he would not allow him to unload the sand and in case any attempt was made to do the same, he would launch a murderous assault. The truck was sent back. Appellant Gurdip Singh abused and threatened to kill Kiratpal Singh, whereafter complainant Kiratpal Singh and his brother Pritpal Singh started in a Maruti car towards the city. Appellant Rajinder Singh started running alongwith the car and climbed over its bonnet, while his son-appellant Gurdip Singh sat on the rear bumper of the car. While catching hold of the bumper, appellant Rajinder Singh started raising an alarm that Pritpal Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -3- Singh and Kiratpal Singh were terrorists and they had kidnapped him and therefore, he be rescued or else he would be killed. Kiratpal Singh became frightened and took the car on the back side of Aanam Cinema. As there were brick-bats lying on the road, the car came to a stop. Appellant Rajinder Singh got down from the car and started hurling brick-bats on Kiratpal Singh, hitting on his right hand, face, nose and head. Appellant Gurdip Singh also hurled brick-bats on the jaw of Kiratpal Singh. The front and rear screens of the car were also broken with brick-bats and the car was badly damaged. Both the appellants ran away from the spot. Kiratpal Singh was removed by his brother Pritpal Singh to Civil Hospital, Amritsar, where he was medico-legally examined. On receipt of medico-legal report in respect of Kiratpal Singh, which was produced by his brother Pritpal Singh, ASI Harpal Singh reached Civil Hospital, Amritsar and after seeking opinion from the doctor about fitness of Kiratpal Singh injured to make a statement, recorded his statement Ex.PH. Up-till that point of time, there was no material to hold that any cognizable offence had been committed by the appellants. However, after receipt of x-ray report, wherein five injuries on the person of Kiratpal Singh were declared grievous, FIR No.7 dated 21.1.1994 was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar for the offences under Sections 325/323/427/34 IPC. During investigation of the case, offence under Section 308 IPC was added to the heading of the FIR on the basis of opinion of the doctor regarding the injuries being dangerous to life. Both the appellants were formally arrested on 22.4.1994. Upon completion of the investigation and presentation of Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -4- challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Both the appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 308/325/323/427 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr Rattanjit Singh, C.M.O, PW-2 Dr Jeevan Latta, Senior Lecturer, PW-3 Kiratpal Singh-complainant, PW-4 HC Man Singh, PW-5 Sohan Singh, Photographer, PW-6 ASI Harpal Singh, PW-7 Dr D.C.Aggarwal, PW-8 Pritpal Singh, PW-9 Dr Surinder Kumar Nain, PW-10 Dr Lehmber Singh, PW-11 Kewal Krishan and PW-12 Rishi Ram, Draftsman. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. According to appellant-Rajinder Singh, on 11.1.1994 at about 5.30 PM, he alongwith his son Harmit Singh was going in a rickshaw to their shop. When they reached near Kothi No.45, Kennedy Avenue, two men in muffled faces and after covering their heads, stopped their rickshaw. A maruti car was coming from behind, which was driven by Kiratpal Singh. Those two men with muffled faces picked him up and threw him on the bonnet of the car. Kiratpal Singh drove away the car towards the back side of Aanam Cinema. Rajinder Singh started raising raula so as to secure some sort of help. As there were brick-bats scattered on the road, the car got stuck. The raula raised by Rajinder Singh attracted a number of people. He was removed from the bonnet of the car and taken to a nearby house. The mob present there hurled brick-bats and stones on the car. He (Rajinder Singh) had not inflicted any injury to Kiratpal Singh, whereas his son Gurdip Singh was Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -5- not present. However, Kiratpal Singh in connivance with the police implicated him and his other son in the present case. In defence, the appellants examined DW-1 Pappu. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 427 read with Section 34 IPC. No separate conviction for offences under Sections 325/323 IPC was recorded, as the appellants were being held guilty for the major offence. Faced with the overwhelming of evidence brought on record by the prosecution in support of its case, learned counsel for the appellants found it difficult to lay serious challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. Instead, he has submitted that appellant Rajinder Singh is now about 73 years of age. He is suffering from parkinsonism, hypertension and senile dementia. Presently, he is in coma. It is also submitted that sometime back, an attempt was made by the appellants to settle the matter with Pritpal Singh, as complainant Kiratpal Singh has already died. However, Pritpal Singh did not listen to them. Instead, he told them to go to complainant Kiratpal Singh and beg for mercy. It is also submitted that both the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 16 years. None of them is a previous convict. They also remained in jail for sometime as convicts. Both the appellants are willing to pay adequate amount as compensation to the legal heirs of complainant Kiratpal Singh since dead. Therefore, the substantive Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -6- sentences of imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to that already undergone by them. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that both the appellants had caused indiscriminate injuries to complainant Kiratpal Singh by hurling brick-bats on him. As per report, Ex.PE made by the doctor, the possibility of all the injuries being collectively dangerous in the ordinary course of events, could not be ruled out. Therefore, none of the appellants deserves any concession in the matter of sentence. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars so as to undergo the remainder of their sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of imprisonment of the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the fine imposed upon them by the trial Court, can be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- in case of each of the appellants so as to adequately compensate the legal heirs of complainant Kiratpal Singh. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Section 308 read with Section 34 and Section 427 read with 34 IPC is maintained. Substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants on both the counts are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- each, which be deposited by them within three months from today, failing which, the defaulting appellant shall undergo Criminal Appeal No.828-SB of 1998 -7- rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years. In the event of deposit of the fine, an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- be disbursed to the legal heirs of complainant Kiratpal Singh. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. July 08, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE