CRA No.1709-SB of 2002.doc -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.1709-SB of 2002 Date of decision : 09.09.2010 Mohammed Yaseen ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 02.09.2002 (for short ‘impugned judgment’) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Sangrur (for short ‘trial Court’), convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and a half years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as narrated in para 2 of the impugned judgment, read as under:- “2. In compass, the allegations which emerge from the prosecution story, are epitomized as under:- CRA No.1709-SB of 2002.doc -2- “That on 12.8.1999, one MLR regarding admission of Kirpal Singh alias Pal son of Pritam Singh, resident of Malerkotla, was received in Police Station, Malerkotla, from the Civil Hospital, on which ASI Darshan Singh visited the Civil Hospital, and moved the application Ex.PB on which the doctor concerned, vide Endst. Ex.PB/1 stated that the injured had been referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala; that on 13.8.1999 ASI Darshan Singh visited Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and moved an application Ex.PW3/A on which, vide his Endst. Ex.PW3/B, the concerned Doctor declared injured Kirpal Singh as fit to make statement; that ASI Darshan Singh recorded the statement of Kirpal Singh injured Ex.PW5/A, wherein Kirpal Singh stated that he is the resident of Malerkotla and is working as SPO Electrician in the Punjab Police Department, at Malerkotla and he also runs a shop in the name and style of ‘Pal Radio and Music House’ in Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla; that Mohd. Yaseen son of Mohd. Ramzan resident of Old Qilla Malerkotla, used to learn the work and about one year ago, he had started his own shop in the name of “K. Raj Electronics” in Sadar Bazar Malerkotla; that his own son Sarabjit Singh used to work at his shop and that on 23.7.1999 Mohammed Yaseen had given a notice in sealed envelope, demanding Rs.70,000/- which was false, and then he moved an application against Mohd. Yaseen before the DSP Malerkotla and the said application was marked to Police Station City, Malerkotla and in that connection on 12.8.1999, Yaseen was called in P.S. City Malerkotla, but he did not come; that then about 2.30 PM on 12.8.1999 he was CRA No.1709-SB of 2002.doc -3- sitting at the shop of Narain Dass son of Modan Dass, situated at Mohalla Chowdhrian Malerkotla, where abovesaid Mohd. Yaseen came having some Chhura like weapon; that Yaseen told him (complainant) to come and he (complainant) asked him what is the matter; that in the meantime, abovesaid Mohd. Yaseen also dragged him in the Bazar and gave blows with the said weapon on his head, from sharp side and one blow hit on the left eye, from reverse-side; that when Narain Dass came forward to rescue him (complainant) then Yaseen accused threw him by giving push and he (complainant) fell down on the ground Mohd. Yaseen gave three more blows with the said weapon in the stomach, and one on the right ankle; that in the meantime, Sarabjit Singh also came at the spot, who witnessed the occurrence; that on hearing the noise raised by him and Sarabjit Singh, people gathered at the spot, on which abovesaid Mohd. Yaseen decamped from the scene of occurrence, along with his weapon; that the complainant was taken to the Hospital, for treatment, from where, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. On the statement of the complainant, IO made his endst, and sent the same to the Police Station, Malerkotla, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.” 3. Challan was presented before the trial Court whereupon the accused was charged under Section 307 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined, Dr. Shital Jain, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, who conducted medico-legal examination of the injured-Kirpal Singh, as CRA No.1709-SB of 2002.doc -4- PW1; Dr. Simarjit Singh as PW2; Dr. Rajnish Jindal as PW3; Narain Dass as PW4; Kirpal Singh, complainant, as PW5; ASI Darshan Singh as PW6; SI Inderjit Singh as PW7 and Amrik Singh, draftsman, as PW8 and Mohinder Singh as PW9. 5. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded while putting him all the incriminating circumstances coming in against him, which he denied and pleaded false implication. In defence, no evidence was led by him. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and analyzing the record and evidence minutely, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him for the term as indicated at the outset of this judgment. 7. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court challenging the same. 8. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 29.10.2002 and the appellant was enlarged on bail on the same date. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that all the injuries on the person of the injured are found to be simple in nature. However, he states that he does not wish to press the case on merits and has prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the offence is proved against the appellant as such no leniency should be shown. 11. The occurrence took place in the year 1999. The appellant has suffered protracted trial for about 11 years. The appellant has CRA No.1709-SB of 2002.doc -5- already undergone about four months out of the substantive sentence of 02 years 06 months. 12. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is maintained, however, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the appellant, the injured needs to be compensated. Therefore, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. On realization of the amount of enhanced fine, an amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the injured- Kirpal Singh, as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the State as litigations charges. 13. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Since the main appeal is decided, as such, the misc. applications pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 09.09.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No