Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Deepu ... Appellant versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocates, for the appellant. Mr.Raveesh Kaushik, AAG, Haryana. ... JORA SINGH, J. Deepu son of Rehman preferred this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 25.4.2000 and order of sentence dated 26.4.2000 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1998/97/96, arising out of FIR No.335 dated 14.8.1996 under Section 308 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad. By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 308 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.7.1996, Shyam Singh, complainant, lodged report with the police to the effect that he was ironing the clothes. His wife Sunita was going to do her job of cleaning the utensils etc. In the meantime, his neighbour Deepu came and had caught hold Sunita by saying as to why her son had beaten his child. Complainant tried to save his wife. Then Deepu gave fist/kick blows to him. On receipt of Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 2 fist/kick blows, he fell down. Occurrence was witnessed by Charan and Om Parkash. He was shifted to the hospital, where he was medico legally examined. On receipt of ruqa, IO had gone to the hospital. Application was moved requesting the doctor to opine as to whether injured was fit to make statement or not. Injured was declared fit to make statement. Then statement of Shyam Singh was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the concerned police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charged under Section 308 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses. PW1 Shyam Singh is the complainant and has reiterated his stand before the police. PW2 Sunita is the eye witness. She has also supported the version of Shyam Singh. PW3 ASI Shri Kishan is the Investigating Officer. PW4 Dr. S.K.Manocha had medico legally examined the complainant and noticed the following injuries on his person:- “1. Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm over upper lip on the left side. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. Lacerated wound of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm over the tip of nose. 3. Complains of pain in abdomen. On examination, abdomen was soft, tender in left iliac fossa. Advised x- Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 3 ray and he was kept under observation and was referred to Surgeon at 12.30 PM. The case was seen by Surgeon and diagnostic aspiration revealed haemo-rhogic fluid in the partioneal cavity. General examination:- Blood pressure 110 mm of Hg. Pulse was 86 per minute. He was referred to Safdarjang Hospital for further management.” PW5 Manoj Kumar had prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PF). PW6 Asa Ram Meena brought record of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. I have heard learned defence counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on file. After arguing for some time when learned defence counsel for the appellant failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, then stated that complainant and the appellant are the neighbours. They belong to poor families. Minor dispute regarding quarrel amongst the children. Appellant was not armed. Fist/kick blows were given. Before the present occurrence, there was no enmity amongst the parties. After the occurrence, no further litigation. Both the parties are residing peacefully. Appellant has already undergone about 19 days out of actual sentence and is Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 4 ready to compensate the complainant. Requested to take lenient view. Learned State counsel argued that appellant was not armed. Minor dispute amongst the children of complainant and appellant, but fist/kick blows were given on the vital parts. No doubt, learned defence counsel has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and only requested to take lenient view, but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence on the file as to whether prosecution story inspires confidence or not. Dr. S.K.Manocha appeared as PW4. On 29.7.1996, he had medico legally examined Shyam Singh and three injuries were noticed. First injury was over the upper lip on the left side and second was on the tip of nose. Injured Shyam Singh appeared as PW1 and stated that appellant had given fist/kick blows by saying as to why his child has a fight with his (Deepu) child. His wife was caught hold by the appellant and while trying to save her, appellant had given fist/kick blows. Wife of the injured Sunita appeared in Court and supported the version of Shyam Singh by saying that in her presence, fist/kick blows were given to her husband by the appellant. No suggestion to the doctor that injuries can be self suffered or self inflicted. Immediately after the occurrence at about 8.30 AM, injured was medico legally examined by Doctor S.K.Manocha at 11.45 AM. After examination, injured was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. One day before the present occurrence, child of the complainant party had a dispute with the child of the appellant. So, there was a motive to cause injuries. No delay in lodging the FIR. Injuries on the vital parts cannot be Crl.Appeal No.414-SB of 2000 5 self suffered or self inflicted. Evidence was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment is upheld on the point of conviction. Occurrence was on 29.7.1996. At that time, appellant was 33 years' old. He has already undergone 19 days out of actual sentence. He is a poor man and is the only bread winner of the family. He has to support minor children. Complainant is also very poor. There was no serious dispute earlier to the occurrence. After the occurrence, parties are residing peacefully and no further litigation. Injured has given affidavit to the effect that he has effected compromise with the appellant. Affidavit of the injured is on the file. Appellant is the neighbour of the complainant. Appellant was not armed. Only fist/kick blows were given. Appellant would become hard criminal if again sent to jail. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, appellant is directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (19 days) with further direction to deposit Rs.10,000/- more as fine, payable to the injured as compensation, within three months before the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence. 7.4.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE