Hardeep Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

3.11.1994 that on 3.11.1994 at about 4.30 PM, he was going with his mother Pritam Kaur to visit the house of his father's sister on the eve of Diwali festival. At that time, his father Amrik Singh (hereinafter referred to as `deceased') was going about 10 paces ahead of them on the same foot way for his domestic work. As soon as deceased reached in front of the house of one Parlhand Singh son of Karnail Singh, then all of 2 a sudden, acquitted accused Gurcharan Singh, armed with gandasi, Hardeep Singh, armed with dattar, Harjinder Singh armed with gandasi and Jaswinder Singh also armed with gandasi, emerged from a street known as schoolwali gali. Acquitted accused Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that "Aaj Isko Bach Kar Jane Mat Dena". Soon thereafter, his sons appellants Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh inflicted gandasi injuries on the deceased with an intention to commit his murder. They gave gandasi blows, which landed on the legs of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road. His turban also went off his head and fell on the ground. Thereafter accused appellant Hardeep Singh gave dattar blow, hitting the deceased on his head. He was followed by accused appellant Harjinder Singh, who also inflicted a gandasi blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, acquitted respondent Gurcharan Singh and accused appellant Jaswinder Singh caused further injuries with gandasi on the arms of the deceased. Complainant Sukhdev Singh and his mother Pritam Kaur raised a hue and cry saying "Mar Dia Mar Dia". After that the deceased was 3 dragged by all the four accused inside the house of accused- appellant Harjinder Singh. Complainant Sukhdev Singh and his mother Pritam Kaur followed them and raised hue and cry. On hearing their noise all the aforesaid four accused, namely, Gurcharan Singh, Hardeep Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, ran away with their weapons towards the village side. The complainant and his mother looked at the deceased who had succumbed to the injuries. The complainant, leaving behind his mother near the dead body at the spot, went to the police post to lodge a report. His statement was recorded by Kartar Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Kariwala, on 3.11.1994 itself. On receipt of ruqa (Ex.PB), a formal FIR (Ex.PB/1) under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered by ASI Baljit Singh (PW3) at Police Station, Ding, at 6.50 PM. He sent a special report through Constable Bhoop Singh (PW-5) on the same day to JMIC, Sirsa. A detailed inquest report (Ex. PD /4) was prepared on 3.11.1994 itself by ASI Kartar Singh (PW 9). Dr. Narinder Chaudhary (PW 4) conducted the post mortem (Ex.PD) of the deceased on 4.11.1994 at about 10.15 AM. He found as many as 14 4 injuries on the dead body. They are as under:

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, the trial 7 was held. As noted above, the appellants were convicted while Gurcharan Singh was acquitted. Appeal was filed by the State and the present appellants and the revision was filed by the complainant.

16. We find that the evidence of PWs 7 & 8 clearly establishes the roles played by the Hardeep Singh and Harjinder Singh. It is also clear from the prosecution evidence that on hearing of the exhortation of the acquitted Gurcharan Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Harjinder Singh had given blows on the legs of the deceased. After he fell down, Hardeep Singh gave blow on the head. Similarly Harjinder Singh also gave blows on the head. After the deceased fell down Jaswinder Singh did not attack on any vital part of the deceased's body. He assaulted on the arm of the deceased. In the aforesaid circumstances, while appeal filed by the accused appellants Hardeep and Harjinder Singh is dismissed, the appropriate conviction of Jaswinder Singh would be under Section 304 Part II IPC. His conviction is accordingly altered. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice.

17. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

..........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) 16 .........................................J. (P.P. NAOLEKAR) New Delhi, June 11, 2008 17 18