Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 Date of decision 06.7.2009. Amrik Singh and others ...... Appellants. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present :- Ms. Malkeet Mann, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. This is an appeal directed by the appellants against the judgment dated 18.2.2002 passed by Shri Harbans Lal, Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 450, 307,326, 326/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter mentioned as - the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under :- Sr. Name of U/s Sentence. No. the convict 1. Amrik Singh 450 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 2 307 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for two months. 326/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 326 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 325/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. 2. Binder Singh 450 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 307 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for two months. 326/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 326/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 325 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. 3. Avtar Singh 450 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 307 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- or in its Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 3 default to further undergo R.I. for two months. 326 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 326/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for one month. 325/34 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in its default to further undergo R.I. for 15 days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated that the present appellants along with Sukhdev Singh and Banta Singh were sent for trial vide commitment order dated 5.12.2000 passed by Mrs.Gurmeet Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.10.2000, Nursing Singh son of Suraj Singh Jat resident of village Fatta Maluka made statement Ex.PL before Pritpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Jhunir, unfolding that he along with his father Suraj Singh, mother Tej Kaur and his wife Kulwinder Kaur are keeping their residence by constructing a farm-house in the fields situate on the kacha passage leading to village Ghuduwala, outside their own village. His wife being pregnant was away to her parental village. On the previous night (referring to 4th October, 2000), at about 7.00 p.m., he went to sleep on the roof of his Kotha, when the electric bulb was glowing in the courtyard. Meanwhile, a scooter came and stopped in front of the outer gate of their house. It was about 7.30 PM. He having stood up saw that Amrik Singh (accused) duly Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 4 armed with `Dahh' , Binder Singh armed with Gandasa sons of Sukhdev Singh and Avtar Singh son of Ganga Singh, armed with Gandasa, Jat resident of Fatta Maluka had entered the courtyard of their house through their outer gate. Amrik Singh on catching sight of his (Nursing Singh's) father, Suraj Singh standing in the courtyard, raised Lalkara that he be taught a lesson for contesting the case regarding land against them. Then Avtar Singh gave a gandasa blow hitting from its reverse side on the forehead of his father. Amrik Singh dealt Dahh blow, which landed on the back of his (Nursing Singh's) father's head. His father raised alarm of killed – killed and fell down on the ground. When he lay fallen on the ground, Avtar Singh delivered gandasa blow, which rested on the wrist of left arm of his father. Binder Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side, hitting his father on his right thigh. Amrik Singh dealt three repeated Dahh blows, hitting his father on his right thigh and right arm. He (Nursing Singh) raised alarm of donot kill – donot kill in a loud voice while standing on the roof of the kotha. Binder Singh gave three repeated gandasa blows on the back of palm of right hand and right upper arm of his father, when he lay fallen on the ground. He (Nursing Singh) again loudly raised alarm of killed-killed and his mother who was present in the house also raised alarm of do not kill do not kill in loud voice. Thereafter, all the said three accused decamped with their respective weapons by riding on the scooter. He (Nursing Singh) and his mother Tej Kaur after having made arrangement for conveyance, removed Suraj Singh for his treatment to Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh and got him admitted there. The doctor gave first aid. The motive behind the occurrence is that Bachan Singh, the paternal uncle of Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 5 Suraj Singh, who died bachelor about one year ago, had 7 killas of land, regarding which the litigation was going on between Suraj Singh and accused Amrik Singh and others in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mansa and that case was filed by Amrik Singh and for that reason, Amrik Singh, Binder Singh and Avtar Singh, on being instigated by Sukhdev Singh and Banta Singh sons of Hazura Singh residents of Fatta Maluka, had caused injuries to Suraj Singh, his father with intent to kill him and the action be initiated against them and that during the night he (Nursing Singh) after having left his mother Tej Kaur, near his father in the hospital, had gone from the hospital to arrange money. Finding a prima facie case, the accused were charged under Sections 450, 307, 326, 326/34, 325/34 and 120-B IPC . The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge examined Dr.Amarjit Singh (PW-1), Nursing Singh complainant (PW-2), Suraj Singh (PW-3), Baghar Singh (PW-4), Kulwant Singh C-II (PW-5), Head Constable Ganga Ram (PW-6), Sushil Kumar, Reader (PW-7), Pritpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-8) and closed the evidence after tendering documents into evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating circumstances were put to them to which they denied and pleaded their innocence. The accused were called upon to lead defence evidence and they examined Rai Singh (DW-1) and Naib Singh (DW-2) and closed the evidence. After appraisal of the evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 6 imprisonment, as narrated above. However, Banta Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused were acquitted by the trial Court vide impugned judgment. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said judgment of conviction, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC, but no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out from the allegations. It is submitted that there were ten injuries on the person of Suraj Singh, as narrated by Dr.Amarjit Singh (PW-1). Seven injuries have been stated to be simple in nature. Three injuries were declared grievous by Dr.Amarjit Singh (PW-1), which are injuries No.3,6 and 8. All these three injuries are on non-vital parts. The opinion of the doctor vide Ex.PK on 27.10.2000 that collective injuries could be dangerous to life cannot be accepted, as grievous injuries are only on the no-vital parts. It is further contended that the punishment awarded is on higher side. It is submitted that the appellants have already undergone incarceration of one year and seven months and in these circumstances, the prayer has been made for reduction in sentence to the already undergone. So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of other provisions of law is concerned, that has not been challenged. Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court and it is submitted that although the grievous injuries are on non-vital parts but collectively the injuries are dangerous to life. Prayer has been made for upholding the judgment. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 7 for the parties. The first controversy is whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC can be maintained or not. In this regard the testimony of Dr.Amarjit Singh (PW-1) is relevant. This witness has stated that on 4.10.2000 at 9.00p.m., he medico-legally examined Suraj Singh son of Sadhu Singh and found ten injuries, as detailed in his statement. He has opined that injuries No.1, 4 and 8 have been caused by blunt weapon whereas the remaining injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon. He has further opined that on police request Ex.PH, he declared injuries No.1,2,4,6,7,9 and 10 as simple in nature and injuries No.3, 5 and 8 as grievous in nature vide his endorsement Ex.PH/1 dated 9.10.2000. However, the same doctor on the request dated 27.10.2000 Ex.PK vide endorsement Ex.PK/1 declared that all the injuries upon the body of Suraj Singh could be dangerous to life collectively if not treated properly. So that opinion of the doctor, in my view, is not sufficient to attract the provision of Section 307 IPC. The same doctor has previously declared the injuries No.3, 6 and 8 as grievous which are admittedly on non-vital parts and the remaining injuries as simple in nature. So the said opinion, as discussed above, is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. So, the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny. Consequently, the accused stand acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Now reverting to the quantum of sentence under the other provisions of law, the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 450 IPC and two years under Sections 326, 326/34, 325 and 325/34 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.495-SB of 2002 8 Vide order dated 24.5.2003, this Court while granting bail to Amrik Singh accused observed that appellant Amrik Singh has already undergone imprisonment for one year, four months and eleven days. Consequently, his sentence was suspended after the expiry of said period. Vide order dated 23.5.2003, this Court observed that Binder Singh appellant has undergone imprisonment for one year and four months whereas Avtar Singh appellant has undergone imprisonment for one year and seven months, consequently the remaining part of their sentence was suspended. The accused are on bail since May 2003 i.e. for the last more than a period of six years. The maximum punishment is awarded under Section 450 IPC as the accused have been acquitted under Section 307 IPC. So, the ends of justice would be adequately met in case the sentence of the accused is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the appellants are directed to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- by contributing equally to injured Suraj Singh. That amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today, failing which they may be called upon to undergo the remaining part of sentence as awarded by the trial Court. In case Suraj Singh has expired, the amount of compensation shall be paid to his legal representatives. With the above modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 06, 2009 sv