Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision: 28.7.2010 (I) Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 Neel Kamal @ Kaka and another ... Appellants versus State of Punjab ... Respondent (II) Crl.Appeal No.966-SB of 2002 Mohan Lal @ Mohni ... Appellant versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Bipan Ghai, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Arshwinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 was preferred by Neel Kamal @ Kaka and Subash @ Basa to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.4.1998 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, arising out of FIR No.96 dated 8.8.1993 under Sections 326/324/307/34 IPC, Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana, whereas Crl.Appeal No.966-SB of 2002 was preferred by Mohan Lal @ Mohni to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, arising out of FIR No.96 dated 8.8.1993 under Sections 326/324/307/34 IPC, Police Station Division Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 2 No.3, Ludhiana. By the judgment dated 23.4.1998, appellants Neel Kamal @ Kaka and Subash @ Basa were convicted under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC and sentenced as under:- “ Neel Kamal @ Kaka Sections 307/34 IPC RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. Section 326 IPC RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for fifteen days. Section 324 IPC To undergo RI for one year. “ Subash @ Basa Sections 307/34 IPC RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. Sections 326/34 IPC RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for fifteen days. Sections 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for one year. By the judgment dated 1.4.2002, appellant Mohan Lal @ Mohni was convicted under Sections 307, 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced as under:- Section 307 IPC RI for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month. Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 3 Sections 326/34 IPC RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for fifteen days. Sections 324/34 IPC To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for fifteen days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that about 10 days prior to 8.8.1993, Santosh Verma came to Ludhiana. On 7.8.1993 at about 10.00 PM, Om Parkash, brother of Santosh Verma came back to his house. Harphool Singh, another brother of Santosh Verma, was already present in the house. Mohan Lal @ Mohni, Subash @ Basa and Neel Kamal @ Kaka were noticed while sitting in the courtyard on the cots and their cots had blocked the passage. Om Parkash requested Mohan Lal and others to clear the passage, then accused felt offended and started abusing Om Parkash, challenging him not to pass through the passage. Mohan Lal and Neel Kamal brought kirpans and Subash brought dang from their house and caused injuries to Santosh Verma, Om Parkash and Harphool Singh. After causing injuries, accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Chaman Lal had shifted the injured to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where they were medico legally examined. Motive to cause injuries was that Mohan Lal and others had a common courtyard with the complainant party and they were intending the complainant party to vacate their house. After recording the statement of Santosh Verma, statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Accused Neel Kamal and Subash Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 4 were arrested and after completion of investigation, appellants were challaned. Mohan Lal was declared proclaimed offender and after his arrest, supplementary challan was presented. Accused were charged under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. After challan was presented against Mohan Lal, he was charged under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. After close of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and gone through the evidence on file. After arguing for some time when learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments, then stated that Neel Kamal was 26 years' old, Subash was 46 years' old and Mohan Lal was 38 years' old at the time of occurrence. One injury was noticed on the person of Om Parkash, one injury on the person of Harphool Singh and two injuries on the person of Santosh. Appellants Neel Kamal and Subash have already undergone twenty four days out of actual Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 5 sentence, whereas Mohan Lal, who caused injury under Section 307 IPC, has already undergone two years, nine months and fifteen days. Appellants are to become hard criminals if again sent to jail to serve imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Argued that impugned judgments are not challenged on the point of conviction. Requested to take lenient view qua sentence, when the appellants are ready to compensate the injured. Learned State counsel argued that on 7.8.1993, appellants fully armed, had caused injuries to Santosh, Om Parkash and Harphool. Injured appeared in Court and supported the prosecution story. Injury punishable under Section 307 IPC cannot be self suffered or self inflicted. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Occurrence is dated 7.8.1993 and no objection if lenient view is taken provided appellants are directed to compensate the injured. No doubt, impugned judgments are not challenged on the point of conviction, but even then, I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether occurrence has taken place or not. Injured eye witnesses appeared in Court and categorically stated that on 7.8.1993, they were present in their house when appellants were found sitting in the courtyard on different cots. Appellants were requested to clear the passage, then they felt offended. Appellants started abusing them and had caused injuries with their respective weapons. Dr. U.S.Sooch had medico legally examined Santosh. Two injuries were noticed on her person. Dr.Simon Dasiah stated that Om Parkash was admitted in the hospital on 8.8.1993 and after that intimation was sent to the concerned police station. Om Parkash was medico legally examined and three injuries were noticed on his person. Harphool was also Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 6 medico legally examined and one injury was noticed on his person. Weapons of offence were recovered from the appellants. In view of the statements of injured, doctors and Investigating Officer, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. No reason to differ. Impugned judgments on the point of conviction are upheld. Occurrence is dated 7.8.1993. At that time, Neel Kamal was 26 years' old, Subash was 46 years' old and Mohan Lal was 38 years' old. Appellants are the first offenders. Injuries were not on the vital part. There was a sudden fight amongst the parties regarding clearance of passage by removing cots. Appellants and injured had a common courtyard. Neel Kamal and Subash have already undergone 24 days out of actual sentence, whereas Mohan Lal, who had caused injury punishable under Section 307 IPC, has already undergone two years, nine months and fifteen days out of actual sentence and this fact is clear from the copies of custody certificates of Neel Kamal and Subash produced in Court at the time of arguments and custody certificate already on the file in case of Mohan Lal. Appellants have suffered financially and mentally by appearing in Court since 1993. They have suffered the agony of trial for the last about 17 years. Appellants are to become hard criminals if again sent to jail to serve imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. After the present occurrence, they have not committed any such act. In 2004(3) RCR (Crl.) 372, Maha Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, conviction was under Section 307 IPC. Accused faced trial and appeal for 15 years. Accused were 71 years, 60 years and 48 years old, respectively. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (three months). In 2004(4) RCR (Crl.) 514, Gurdip Singh and others vs. State Crl.Appeal No.394-SB of 1998 7 of Punjab, conviction was under Section 307 IPC. Appellants had already undergone some part of sentence. They were living peacefully and have not participated in any such act after the occurrence. Held that sending the appellants to jail once again after the lapse of so many years would amount to reopening the wounds which might have healed by now. Sentence was reduced to already undergone, but fine was enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, to be paid to the injured. In the light of above discussion, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Instead of directing the appellants to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, they are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (twenty four days in case of Neel Kamal @ Kaka and Subash @ Basa, and two years, nine months and fifteen days in case of Mohan Lal @ Mohni). Appellants are further directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- more each as fine within two months before the trial Court, payable to the injured in equal share as compensation. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with the modification qua sentence. 28.7.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE