-1- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002. Date of Decision: March 15 ,2010. Rohtas and others ... Appellants. VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. Ranbir ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana 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. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, Mr.Rajesh K.Kataria, Advocate, and Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, for the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1826- -2- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002 as they arise out of the same First Information Report. Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 has been preferred by appellants Rohtas, Sanjay, Bijender, Hawa Singh, Virender alias Biru and Rajinder alias Borra against the judgment of conviction dated 3.11.2002 and the sentence order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing them under Section 148 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 148 of the Code, each of the a appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002 has been filed by petitioner-complainant Ranbir, who had received injuries in the case, praying for enhancement of fine awarded to the appellants and disbursement of the same as compensation to him. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 24.1.1998, complainant Ranbir had gone to his fields known as `Hudawala fields' to irrigate the same. Accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender along with their co-accused Om Parkash (since deceased) met the complainant there and asked -3- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. him in case he came to irrigate the fields, they would kill him. The complainant returned to his house and narrated the incident to his family members. On the next day i.e 25.1.1998, the complainant was going to his fields known as `Pattewala fields' through his `Khaaswala fields'. However, on the way leading to the `Hudawala fields', the complainant was confronted by Om Parkash (since deceased), appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender armed with axes and appellants Virender alias Biru, Hawa Singh and Rajinder alias Borra, also armed with axes. Accused Om Parkash (since deceased), Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender inflicted injuries with the respective axes on the leg, hands and head of Ranbir. As a result of these injuries, the complainant fell down on the ground. Appellants Hawa Singh, Virender alias Biru and Rajinder also caused injuries to the complainant with their respective axes. While inflicting injuries, the accused had declared that they would kill him. On hearing an alarm raised by the complainant, his brother Balwan, who was irrigating the `Pattewala fields', reached the spot. After causing injuries, the accused ran away from the spot. On completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was put in the Court against the accused. The accused were put to trial for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Code. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as -4- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. twelve witnesses. 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 party faction in the village. In defence, the accused had examined Dr. (Ms.) Varsha, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat (D.W.1), who had medico-legally examined accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and appellant Sanjay. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Dr. (Ms.) Suman Mathur (P.W.4) had medico-legally examined injured-complainant Ranbir on 25.1.1998 at 2.30 P.M and found seven injuries on his person, which were lacerated wounds on the lower one-third of right side, right ankle, left leg, scalp, left parietal region and right parietal temporal region. The injuries were blunt weapon injuries. Dr.Ajay Goel (P.W.10) deposed that on 1.2.1998, right leg below knee of the complainant was amputated. Dr. S.S. Lachab (P.W.12) had gave the opinion that the injury to the tibial arteries where massive blood loss to the vessels and to the muscles had occurred was dangerous to life. The complainant was subjected to severe beatings by the accused. However, the participation of accused-appellants Hawa Singh, Virender alias Biru and Rajinder alias Borra in the commission of the crime is doubtful. Complainant Ranbir (P.W.1) has divided the -5- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. occurrence into two parts. He stated that accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender had inflicted him injuries with their axes on his right leg, which had to be amputated. He further stated that he received injuries on his hands and head at the hands of accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender. As a result of these injuries, he fell down on the ground. The other accused, namely, Hawa Singh, Virender alias Biru and Rajinder alias Borra also attacked him with their respective weapons. However, he escaped. In his cross- examination complainant Ranbir (P.W.1) stated that when accused Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru arrived at the scene of occurrence, he had already suffered all the injuries on his person. Balwan (P.W.3), brother of complainant Ranbir, who had been attracted to the spot on hearing the noise raised by Ranbir, stated that he saw accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender, who were armed with axes, causing injuries to Ranbir. He further stated that accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru had also attacked his brother with the axes but he escaped. If accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru, while allegedly armed with axes, intended to cause injuries to Ranbir, who had fallen down on the ground, Ranbir could not escape. This version has been given by Balwan (P.W.3) to involve accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru in -6- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. this case. Accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru are real brothers of accused Om Parkash (since deceased). Appellants Rohtas and Sanjay are the nephews of accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru, being the sons of accused Om Parkash (deceased). The complainant party appears to have named accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru to settle their scores with them. It is worth mentioning here that in this case the presence of Om Parkash (since deceased) and Sanjay (appellant) at the spot has been admitted in view of the statement of Dr. (Ms.) Varsha, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat (D.W.1), who had medico- legally examined accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and appellant Sanjay. Two injuries i.e swelling on left side of lower jaw and complain of pain on the left scapular region of Om Parkash were observed whereas one injury i.e reddish blue contusion on the left scapular region of appellant Sanjay was observed by Dr. (Ms.) Varsha (D.W.1). No doubt, the injuries on the persons of accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and appellant Sanjay have not been explained by the prosecution, but it does not affect the prosecution version in view of the statements of Ranbir complainant (P.W.1) and Balwan (P.W.3) so far as the participation of accused Om Parkash (since deceased) and accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender in the commission of the instant crime is concerned. However, the case of the prosecution against accused-appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh -7- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. Virender alias Biru, as observed above, is not free from doubt. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal qua accused- appellants Rajinder, Hawa Singh Virender alias Biru is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua them are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. The conviction of accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender for the aforesaid offences is maintained. However, the sentence of these appellants for the major offence under Section 307 of the Code is reduced from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to five years while imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- upon them, which shall be shared by accused- appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender. This fine will be in addition to the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court on accused-appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender for the offence under Section 307 of the Code. If recovered, this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid to injured Ranbir as compensation. The sentence awarded to appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender under Section 148 of the Code shall remain unaltered. Both the sentences under Sections 148 and 307 of the Code imposed upon appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender shall run concurrently. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. Appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender will deposit the amount of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If -8- Criminal Appeal No.1826-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002. the fine is deposited, the same will be paid to injured Ranbir as compensation. Needless to say, if appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial Court within the period stipulated above, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as awarded to them by the trial Court under Section 307 of the Code shall remain unaltered. With the above conditional modification in the sentence order, this appeal qua appellants Rohtas, Sanjay and Bijender is dismissed. Criminal Revision No.2483 of 2002 filed by injured- petitioner Ranbir stands allowed to the extent indicated above. March 15 , 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE