Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.671-SB of 1999 Date of decision: 4.4.2011 Manjit Singh and others ... Appellants versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajinder Mathur, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. This is an appeal by Manjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Chajju Singh to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.1999 passed by additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 18T/99/27.11.1995, arising out of FIR No. 72 dated 6.8.1995, PS Julkhan, under Sections 308/34 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 308/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months each. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.8.1995, Balbir Singh son of Pritam Singh lodged report with the police that at about 6.00 AM, he along with his father Pritam Singh and brother Gurbachan Singh was going towards their outer house to provide fodder to the cattle. They were in the street, then street was found blocked with bricks. They enquired from each Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 2 other as to who has blocked the street. In the meantime, Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh, armed with dangs, came at the spot, followed by their father Chhaju Singh, armed with .12 bore gun. Chhaju Singh raised lalkara that they have blocked the street. Manjit Singh gave dang blow to Gurbachan Singh hitting his left temple. Amarjit Singh gave dang blow on the left side of head of Gurbachan Singh. On receipt of injuries, Gurbachan Singh fell down. Raula was raised attracting Rajinder Singh and Pritam Singh. On seeing the witnesses, accused had fled away with respective weapons from the scene of occurrence. Injured was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Motive to attack the complainant party was protest by the complainant and his father and brother about the blockade of street by the accused party. After recording statement of Balbir Singh (Ex.PA), same was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PA/2) was recorded. IO had gone to the spot. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. IO had gone to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, on 7.8.1995, 8.8.1995 and 9.8.1995 to seek opinion of the Medical Officer as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not, but on each occasion, injured was declared unfit to make statement. On 10.8.1995, police party had gone to the spot to conduct further investigation. Sukhwinder Singh son of Pritam Singh had met the police party. Amarjit Singh and Manjit Singh were arrested. Manjit Singh suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered dang from the specified place. Amarjit Singh also suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered dang from the specified place. Weapons were taken into police possession vide Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 3 different memos attested by the witnesses. .12 bore double barrel gun was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PC). Chajju Singh had surrendered before the police. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charged under Sections 308/34 IPC and 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 Balbir Singh, PW2 Pritam Singh, PW3 Dr.Manjit Singh, PW4 Dr. Brij Mohan Singh Nagra, PW5 HC Satnam Singh, PW6 Dr. Ramandeep Singh, PW7 Gurbachan Singh, PW8 Dr. Neel Kamal, PW9 Dr. Kulwinder Singh Sohal, PW10 Rajinder Singh, PW11 Dr. Krishan Mohan Kapoor, PW12 Constable Pirthi Singh and PW13 ASI Baldev Singh. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh was that they were in judicial custody, whereas defence version of Chajju Singh was that he was not present at the spot. In defence, DW1 Harjit Singh, DW2 MHC Harvinder Singh and DW3 Parshotam Dutt Sharma were examined. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on file. Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 4 After arguing for some time, when learned defence counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that parties effected compromise and this fact is clear from the statements of PW1 Balbir Singh and PW2 Pritam Singh. Occurrence is of the year 1995. At that time, Manjit Singh was 32 years' old, Amarjit Singh was 36 years' old, whereas Chajju Singh was 70/72 years' old. Appellants have already undergone some portion of sentence. Requested to take lenient view as per 1999 Crl.L.J. 1841, State of Gujrat vs. Pandya Premashanker @ Bachubhai Revashanker and another. Learned State counsel argued that appellants fully armed had caused injuries to Gurbachan Singh. Balbir Singh, complainant, and Pritam Singh failed to support the story because they were won over by the appellants. Injured is the brother of the complainant, whereas appellants are the neighbours. No objection if lenient view is taken. No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellants has not challenged the judgment on the point of conviction and only requested to take lenient view in term of compromise, but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence on file as to whether prosecution story inspires confidence. According to story, in the presence of Balbir Singh and Pritam Singh, appellants had caused injuries to Gurbachan Singh. Injuries were caused with dangs. One injury was by Manjit Singh and second by Amarjit Singh. Chajju Singh was armed with gun but no fire arm injury. Doctor appeared in Court and according to the MLR, two injuries were noticed on the person of injured. Injured remained under treatment for considerable long time and on account of injuries, he suffered paralytic attack. Occurrence was witnessed by Balbir Singh and Pritam Singh. Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 5 Balbir Singh is the brother, whereas Pritam Singh is the father of Gurbachan Singh, but Balbir Singh and Pritam Singh while appearing in Court, then did not support the story. In examination-in-chief, they had supported the story, but when they were cross-examined, then they had resiled from their statements. That means, they had effected compromise with the appellants. Otherwise, there was no reason to resile from their statements because injured was closely related to them. Rajinder Singh was the second eye witness but he was not examined. Gurbachan Singh, injured, appeared as PW7 and categorically stated that appellants had caused injuries to him. Statement of the injured, coupled with medical evidence on file, shows that appellants had caused injuries. No reason to differ. So, judgment of trial Court is upheld on the point of conviction. Occurrence is of the year 1995. At that time, Manjit Singh was 32 years' old, Amarjit Singh was 36 years' old, whereas Chajju Singh was 70/72 years' old. Appellants are the first offenders. They are the neighbours of the complainant party. After the occurrence, no dispute amongst the parties. Manjit Singh has already undergone 3 months and 2 days, Amarjit Singh has undergone 2 months and 13 days and Chajju Singh has undergone 8 days. Appellants would become hard criminals, if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Keeping in view the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (3 months and 2 days in case of Manjit Singh, 2 months and 13 days in case of Amarjit Singh and Crl.Appeal No. 671-SB of 1999 6 8 days in case of Chajju Singh). Appellants are further directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- each within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured as compensation. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. 4.4.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE