IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 Ved Parkash … Appellant Versus State of Haryana … Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 Dharam Pal … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents Date of decision: 23rd February, 2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anoop Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner-complainant. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 titled as ‘Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana’ shall be decided along with Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 titled as ‘Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and another’. Appellant Ved Parkash had caused injuries to Arvind PW-10 and a case FIR No.121 dated 12.10.2000 was registered at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary under Sections 324, 307, 323, 325 and 506 IPC at the instance of Dharam Pal PW-12, who is uncle (Chacha) of injured Arvind. In the above said FIR, appellant Ved Parkash was tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Narnaul for having caused injuries to Arvind PW-10 on 12th October, 2000 in the area of village Ghataser. The Court of Sessions Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 Judge, Narnaul vide its impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2003, held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and vide a separate order dated 25th January, 2003 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. In Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003, appellant Ved Parkash has assailed his conviction and sentence, whereas, complainant Dharam Pal PW-12, by filing Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 has prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant Ved Parkash be enhanced. Dharam Pal PW-12 made a statement Ex.PE to SI Rameshwar Dayal PW-14, who was then posted as SHO Police Station Nangal Chaudhary. Complainant Dharam Pal stated that he was posted as a teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Nizampur. They are five brothers. Sat Narayan is elder to him and is having two sons namely Pankaj and Arvind. Arvind used to go to the fields for morning walk. On 12th October, 2000 at about 4.30 a.m. Arvind had gone for jogging. At about 5.00 a.m., appellant Ved Parkash armed with a Kulhari caused him injuries on both of his hands, nose, right leg and towards the back of his head. One injury was also caused on the lower part of his right leg. Mohar Singh son of Bihari shouted that Arvind has been inflicted injuries by Kulhari. On hearing the noise, witnesses ran towards the spot. Seeing the witnesses coming, the accused decamped from the spot. The cause of grudge stated was that Sat Narayan father of Arvind had purchased land on 7th September, 2000 from brother of the accused Ved Parkash. In the present case, injured Arvind appeared as PW-10 and narrated the entire occurrence. The version spelt-out by him is in consonance with the narration of occurrence given by complainant Dharam Pal PW-12 to the police in his statement Ex.PE. It is a case where appellant 2 Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 is the sole accused. Injured Arvind PW-10 will be the last person to substitute the real assailant. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of injured Arvind PW-10. Since, the presence of injured Arvind at the spot is stamped and the same cannot be doubted, Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that Arvind PW-10 was medico-legally examined by Dr.Sanjay Bishnoi PW-1 on 12th October, 2000 and the following injuries were found on his person: “1. 6 cms x 5 cms bruise with 2 cms rounded abrasion over it, red in colour, situated over nose. 2. 3 cms rounded bruise situated over mid occipital region of skull. 3. 4 cms x 1.5 cms incised wound red in colour muscle deep with clean cut margins, situated over medial aspect of palm of left hand. 4. 6 cms x 2.5 cms incised wound, muscle deep with clean cut margins, red in colour, situated over inter digital cleft between thumb and index finger of right hand with tendon of F.P.L. muscle was cut and visible through the wound. 5. 8 cms x 2.5 cms incised wound spindle shape red in colour with clean cut margins, muscle deep, situated over anterior aspect of right thigh, 14 cms above knee. 6. 3 cms rounded abrasion red in colour situated over anterior aspect of right knee.” Counsel for the appellant has stated that injured Arvind had only suffered an abrasion on his nose and the other on his skull, and both the injuries were declared as simple in nature. It is further submitted that except injuries No.1 and 2, all other injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body and the only grievous injury found on the person of Arvind PW-10 was nothing but a fracture of index finger. Learned counsel has further submitted that from the nature and number of injuries suffered by injured 3 Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 Arvind PW-10, the offence, if any, will not fall under Section 307 IPC but under Section 326 IPC. Dr. A.K. Chhakkar PW-2, who had radiologically examined Arvind, had only declared injury No.4 to be grievous, as it was a fracture of fifth metacarpal bone of index finger of the left hand. To controvert this argument, Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant, has referred to the testimony of Arvind PW-10 to state that the appellant had given Kulhari blows with such a force that even the Kulhari had also broken. It is stated that Kulhari had hit the road and therefore, it had broken. To appreciate the argument advanced by counsel for the complainant, it will be necessary to reproduce relevant portion of examination in-chief of injured Arvind PW-10, which reads as under: “… … … I was hit by someone on my back side. I turned back and saw Ved Parkash who was having kulhari in his hand. He again gave me a blow on my head with kulhari. Again said when he was giving me second blow I received that blow by raising my right hand on the thumb of the right hand. Third blow given by him was received by me on my left hand which I had raised to protect myself. Then I fell back. Ved Parkash gave me other blow that hit me on my right thigh. He again gave me a kulhari blow which fell on the left side of my nose. He gave me another blow which fell on my left knee. He gave another blow but in the meanwhile I rolled on the side and the blow landed on the road, thus breaking the kulhari. I was raising alarm during all this time. Murari Lal Sharma, Mohar Singh came running towards me. Seeing them rushing towards us, the accused ran away. The kulhari of the accused and his shawl remained at the spot… … …” It seems that inured Arvind PW-10 has exaggerated the version given in the Court. A perusal of the injuries suffered by him will show that injury No.1 was only a bruise of 6 cm x 5 cm which had caused only a rounded abrasion, whereas, injury No.2 was nothing but a 3 cm 4 Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 rounded bruise. Similarly, injury No.3 was 4 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound on the left hand. Injury No.4 was also an incised wound on the index finger. The fifth injury was on the thigh and the sixth injury was 3 cm rounded abrasion on the right knee. From the dimensions of the injuries, it is apparent that the story that accused was giving blows with such a force that the Kulhari had broken, has been stated out of proportion. It will be pertinent to notice that in cross-examination, Dr.Sanjay Bishnoi PW-1 stated that a possibility cannot be ruled out that injuries No.1, 2 and 6 could or could not be caused by the weapon shown to him. Furthermore, the doctor stated that injured remained conscious throughout the period during his medico legal examination. Thus, it can be safely inferred that though the appellant intended to commit a murderous assault, the nature of injuries caused by accused is not such that award of five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC is justifiable. Furthermore, occurrence, in the present case, is more than ten years old and the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 307 IPC is reduced from five years to 3 ½ years rigorous imprisonment. With the modification in sentence noticed above, Criminal Appeal No.255-SB of 2003 is hereby dismissed. Since, this Court has reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 307 IPC, no ground is made out to enhance the sentence, and hence, Criminal Revision No.565 of 2003 preferred by the complainant Dharam Pal also stands dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 23, 2011 rps 5