Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 Date of decision : 10.02.2011 Ram Chander and others ....Appellants V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA J. (ORAL) Appellants herein were tried as accused in case FIR No. 79 dated 23.05.1997 registered at Police Station Baund Kalan under Sections 148/307/323/324 and 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.1997 in the area of village of Sakror at about 6.00/6.30 a.m. all the accused caused injuries to Dharamvir PW-8 and thereby committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants had also stated to have caused injuries to Santosh PW-9, wife of Dharamvir and for causing injuries to her, appellants were charged for offence under Section 325 IPC. Besides these charges, appellants were also charged under Section 148, 323 read with Section 149 and Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 2 Dharamvir PW-8 had suffered ten injuries. Injury No. 1 was on the head and rest of the injuries were stated to be on legs and arms. Out of these injuries, Dharamvir had suffered six fractures and Santosh had suffered five injuries. She had suffered fracture of fibula left side lower end also. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Dharamvir while appearing as PW-8 made a statement to Ram Avtar, Inspector SHO Police Station Baund Kalan, PW-10, stating that on 22.05.1997 at about 6.30 a.m. he was coming from his village after easing himself and when he reached near the ghair of Kamal Singh, two trucks were parked there. As soon as, he reached near the trucks, Ram Chander armed with Farsi, Dharma and Sukhbir armed with lathies told him that they will teach a lesson for firing shots on their ladies. Ram Chander inflicted farsi blow on the forehead and Dharma inflicted lathi blow on the foot of his right leg due to which he fell down on the ground. Sukhbir inflicted lathi blow on the knee of the right leg. In the meantime, Hardeva, Sunita, Raj, Bhoop, Kamal, Fakiru, Nanu, Rajo and Geeta reached at the spot. They were also armed with lathies. They also gave a threat that complainant should not be spared and be killed. Hardeva inflicted lathi blow on the wrist of the right hand. Sunita gave a lathi blow on the right hand. Raj inflicted a lathi blow on the foot of left leg, Bhoop inflicted lathi blow on the back portion of left leg, Kamal inflicted lathi blow on the knee of left leg, Fakiru inflicted lathi blow on the left thigh, Nanu inflicted lathi blow on the left hand, whereas Rajo and Geeta gave slaps and fist blows. He further stated that Santosh wife of Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 3 Dharamvir tried to intervene, she was also inflicted injuries by the accused. Ram Chander had given a farsi blow on the left leg, Geeta inflicted lathi blow on right leg, Sunita inflicted lathi blow on right leg, Rajo inflicted lathi blow on right arm. Meanwhile, Karambir, Satbir and other villagers reached at the spot due to their intervention the accused decamped from the spot along with their respective weapons. The motive of causing injuries was that there was a dispute of land between the accused party and the complainant party and complainant had been successful in the litigation up to the High Court. The trial court placed reliance upon the testimonies of injured Dharamvir PW-8 and Santosh PW-9 and held the appellants guilty of offences under Sections 148/149/307/323/324/325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Vide its judgment dated 10.09.2002 and by a separate order of sentence dated 16.09.2002, they were sentenced as under:- u/s 148 IPC All the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year each. u/s 307 read with 149 IPC Appellants Ram Chander, Sukhbir, Raj Singh, Kamal, Bhup Singh and Dharma were sentenced to undergo R.I. each for 06 years and to pay a fine of `200/- each in default to further undergo R.I. for 3 months each. Appellants Hardeva, Nanu, Faquira, Sunita, Rajesh & Geeta were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further undergo R.I. for 3 months each. u/s 323 read with 149 All the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months each u/s 324/149 All the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year each. Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 4 u/s 325/149 All the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 02 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default to further undergo R.I. for 03 months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has stated that since PW-8 Dharamvir and PW-9 Sunita had suffered injuries and were stamp witnesses, he will not be able to assail their testimonies. Learned counsel has stated that during the pendency of the appeal, appellants Hardeva, Nanu and Fakira had died. He further submits that accused at the time of occurrence were aged between 25 to 40 years. Learned counsel has submitted that occurrence in the present case relates to year 1997 and a period of about fourteen years is going to elapse. He has further urged that after the present occurrence, no untoward incident has taken place and peace is prevailing in the village. It is further submitted that in case appellants are sent behind the bars, it may disturb the prevailing peace between the parties. Learned counsel further contends that appellants are ready and willing to compensate the injured in monetary terms. I have perused the injuries suffered by Dharamvir. Injury No. 2 is on the right foot, injury No. 3 is on the right leg, injury No. 4 is on the left foot, injury no. 5 is on the left leg, injury no. 6 is on the left knee, injury no. 7 is on the left thigh, injury No. 8 is on the left forearm and injury no. 9 is on the right wrist. For ten injuries on person of Dharamvir, twelve accused have been named. Similarly, injury no. 1 suffered by Santosh is on the left leg, injury no. 2 is on the left ankle, injury no. 3 is on the right leg and Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 5 injury no. 4 is also on the right leg. Except one injury which is on the head of Dharamvir attributed to Ram Chander, all other injuries are on the non- vital parts of the body. It shows that accused made an attempt to give sound thrashing to Dharamvir and when his wife (Santosh) intervened, she was also caused injuries. This Court has to ponder over, and think whether after the lapse of 14 years appellants ought to be sent behind the bars and whether it will serve any useful purpose or not. Article 21 of the Constitution of India vests right of speedy trial in the accused-appellants. In last, 14 years accused have advanced ahead in their lives to shoulder many responsibilities of life. It will be too harsh to send the appellants behind the bars, that too when the Court is of the view that if injured are compensated in monetary terms it may also provide them with some solace. During the pendency of appeal, Hardeva, Nanu and Fakira, appellants No. 5, 9 & 10 respectively have already expired, whereas the rest of the appellants , as per their custody certificates, brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondent, they have undergone actual sentence as under :- 1. Ram Chander, Appellant No. 1 1 years, 5 months & 2 days 2. Sukhbir, Appellant No. 2 1 years, 5 months & 2 days 3. Smt. Sunita, Appellant No. 3 3 months & 24 days 4. Raj Singh, Appellant No. 4 7 months & 1 day 5. Kamal, Appellant No. 6 7 months& 1 day 6. Bhoop Singh, Appellant No. 7 7 months& 1 day 7. Dharma, Appellant No. 8 7 months& 1 day 8. Smt. Rajesh, Appellant No. 11 4 months & 15 days 9. Smt. Geeta, Appellant No. 12 4 months & 15 days Appellants No. 3, 11 & 12 are ladies. Criminal Appeal No. 1537-SB of 2002 6 Considering all these mitigating circumstances as spelt out, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice will be fully served if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of already undergone. However, a fine of `25,000 each is imposed upon each appellant. On deposit of amount of fine (i.e. `2,25,000/-), `1,50,000/- will be paid as compensation to injured Dharamvir while a sum of `75,000/- will be disbursed to his wife, Santosh. The amount of fine will be deposited within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the fine is not paid, the benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the appellants. With the observations, made above, the present appeal is disposed of. February 10, 2011 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Ajay JUDGE