CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 820-22 of 1996 PETITIONER: TARSEM SINGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/2002 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
The appellant and 12 others were chargesheeted before
the learned Sessions Judge, Barnala, for various offences;
principal offence amongst them being one punishable under
Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of Hari Singh and
Bharpur Singh in an incident which took place on 4.6.1987 at
about 10 a.m. It is the prosecution case that in regard to certain
disputes the appellants’ group and complainant PW-4, Nazar
Singh’s group had in regard to the right to bid for certain
Shamlat land which was being auctioned on the relevant date,
the appellant and other accused persons assaulted the group of
the complainant, caused injuries to various persons, consequent
to which the abovesaid two persons died due to the injuries
suffered in the said attack. The learned Sessions Judge as per
his judgment dated 22.12.1988 convicted 9 of those persons for
offences punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC, and
sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 8 years and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the appellants preferred criminal appeals before the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, and the High
Court as per its judgment dated 2.11.1995 upheld the conviction
of the appellants imposed on them under Section 304, Part II,
IPC but on taking into consideration various extenuating
factors, reduced the said sentence from 8 years to 5 years’ RI,
maintaining the fine imposed by the Sessions Court. The other
sentences imposed on the appellants under other minor charges
were maintained and were made to run concurrently. It is
against this judgment of the High Court that the appellants, 8 in
numbers, are before us.
Having perceived the difficulty in arguing for a clear
acquittal, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, in our view rightly, confined the two-fold arguments
to the nature of the offence and the quantum of sentence only.
He contended that the courts below erred in coming to
the conclusion that the offence in question was one falling
under Section 304, Part II, IPC, while if at all a conviction is to
be based, according to him, it could be only under Section 325
IPC. Based on the material available on record, he pointed out
that though the appellants had carried sharp-edged and blunt
weapons which could cause serious injuries, a perusal of the
injuries caused on the deceased would show that they were not
used for the purpose of causing such injuries which in their
knowledge would cause death.
In support of this contention, the learned counsel drew our
attention to the injuries found on the deceased and argued that
these injuries were small in nature and were not deep enough so
as to cause a knowledgeable death. He further contended that
even, according to the prosecution the appellants are supposed
to have carried weapons like spears, daggers, gandasas, gupti
etc. and if, as a matter of fact, the appellants were to cause
injuries which in their knowledge would cause death then the
injuries on the deceased would have been more severe injuries.
He also contended that since the attack in question was
spontaneous, without there being any personal or individual
enmity with the deceased persons, the injuries at the most
could be attributable to offences punishable under Section 325
IPC.
We have carefully examined the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and also the arguments addressed on behalf of the
parties. The learned Sessions Judge who considered the
evidence on record, in our opinion, rightly came to the
conclusion that the offence in question could not be one that
could be brought under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC,
but the one which would fall under Section 304, Part II, IPC.
He found that at least one of the injuries caused on the deceased
was severe enough to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. Based on the evidence of the doctor, he held that an
incised wound of 3 x x inches on the right side of the
scalp just above the left ear which caused the fracture of left
parietal and left temporal bone extending to the frontal and
occipital region could never be treated as an injury
contemplated under Section 325 IPC, but should be held to be
one that would cause death which knowledge the appellant
must have had. It is on an analysis of this evidence of the doctor
pertaining to the injuries suffered by the two deceased persons,
namely, Hari Singh and Bharpur Singh, the learned Sessions
Judge came to the conclusion that these accused who have been
found guilty of having caused those injuries could only be
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II,
IPC. The High Court on re-appreciation of this evidence, has
agreed with the learned Sessions Judge, and we do not find any
infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court as well as
the High Court. In our opinion, it would be stretching the
defence case far beyond the limits if we were to conclude that
the injuries caused on the two deceased persons which were
attributed to the appellants, could be anything other than the
one falling under Section 304, Part II, IPC. In the said view of
the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings
recorded by the two courts below.
It was next contended by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned
counsel, that the appellants are all aged persons and the incident
in question took place as far back as on 4.6.1987 and they
having served some part of the sentence, are entitled to a more
humane consideration, hence, the sentence of 5 years awarded
by the High Court should be reduced. We notice that under the
Code, the maximum sentence awardable for an offence under
Section 304, Part II, IPC is imprisonment for 10 years. Inspite
of the same, the learned Sessions Judge considered the material
on record and came to the conclusion that a sentence of 8 years
with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each would serve the ends of justice in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Even this sentence was
reduced by the High Court on taking a more humane approach
and reduced that sentence to a period of 5 years. We are
convinced that the sentence now awarded by the High Court is
reasonable, even taking into consideration the respective ages
of the appellants as also the long period that has rolled by since
the committing of the offence in question. We do not think it
appropriate to further reduce the period of sentence, keeping in
view the gravity of the offence committed.
In the said view of the matter, the appeals fail and the
same are hereby dismissed. If the appellants are on bail the
bailbonds are cancelled, and they are required to serve out the
remainder period of their sentence.
…………………………..J.
(N. Santosh Hegde)
…………………………..J.
January 29, 2002. (Doraiswamy Raju)