Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998
Date of Decision:02.02.2009
Kulwinder Kumar alias Raja
.....Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisth, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence
dated 19.2.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridkot whereby he convicted and sentenced Kulwinder Kumar alias Raja
accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under
Section 304 Part-II of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under
Section 452 of IPC with a further direction that the substantive sentences
shall run concurrently.
Shortly put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.3.1996
at about 10/11:00 P.M, Karnail Singh PW accompanied by his grandson
Jasvir Singh PW was proceeding to the Doctor for taking medicines as the
former had suddenly felt pain. In the street, through which they were
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -2-
passing, Sadhu Singh (deceased) being bachelor was residing all alone.
When they neared his house, they heard alarm being raised in his house.
When they reached in front of the door of his house, Kulwinder Kumar alias
Raja accused, an addict was noticed demanding intoxicant pills from Sadhu
Singh, who refused to oblige him in this behalf. On his such refusal, the
accused started giving beatings to Sadhu Singh with pestle in his hand. On
being raised noise by Karnail Singh and Jasvir Singh, the accused decamped
from the spot. On the following day, Sadhu Singh was removed to Civil
Hospital, Moga, where he was medico legally examined. On 29.3.1996, he
succumbed to the injuries. SI Satnam Singh PW recorded the report, which
was thumb marked by Karnail Singh after admitting its contents to be
correct. The said S.I. proceeded to the scene of crime along with other
police officials, lifted the blood stained and simple earth from the spot,
seized the same by converting into separate parcels, prepared the rough site
plan showing the place of occurrence, the inquest report on the dead body of
Sadhu Singh and arrested the accused on 4.4.1996. After completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa
Magistrate. He committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the
accused.
On commitment, the accused was charged under Sections
304/452 of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order
to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Karnail Singh
complainant PW1, Jasvir Singh an eye-witness PW2, Dr. Navraj Singh
PW3, Sub Inspector Satnam Singh PW4, ASI Deepak Singh PW5,
Constable Harjinder Singh PW6, Gursewak Singh PW7, Head Constable
Gursewak Singh PW8, Head Constable Sucha Singh PW9 and closed its
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -3-
evidence by tendering the reports of Forensic Labortoary Ex.PU and Ex.PV.
When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution
evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication.
He has put forth that he was arrested from his house on 28.3.1996 and was
detained in the Police Station upto 4.4.1996, whereafter he was implicated
in this false case. In defence, he has examined Amar Singh DW1. After
hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned
defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial
Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed supra. Feeling
aggrieved with his conviction/ sentence, he has preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by the
learned trial Court in any manner. This being a Court of first appeal, it is
required to appraise the evidence. Of course, as is borne out from the
record, there was a delay of as many as 42 hours in reporting incidence to
the police. But it is apt to be borne in mind that it is a case of one against
one. The ocular account tendered by Karnail Singh, the real brother of the
deceased as well as his grandson Jasvir Singh PW2 is consistent and
credible. It is a celebrated dictum of law that relationship is not a factor to
affect the credibility of a witness. On examining their evidence with due
care and caution, it emanates that the same is intrinsically trustworthy, bears
a ring of truth, besides inspiring confidence. On a careful perusal of their
evidence, it emerges out that no previous ill-will, animus or motive has been
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -4-
attributed to either of these to rope in the accused falsely. To say the least
of it, on evaluating their evidence, it comes out that their testimony could
not be impeached and they withstood the test of cross-examination in a
successful manner. That being so, the learned trial Court was justified in
placing abundant reliance upon such evidence. Sequelly, the conviction
calls for no interference. As such, it is maintained.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made a misericordious
submission to reduce the substantive sentence to the one already undergone.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this
submission.
In re: Nadodi Jayaraman etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992
(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 164, the accused were held
guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The sentence was
reduced to the already undergone by the Apex Court. In re: Sawinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)
163, the accused had caused death of the deceased over a petty matter and
he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, the sentence was
reduced to the already undergone. In re: Chhota Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 467, the sentence
under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was reduced to the already undergone (13
months). In re: Allis v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) Recent Criminal
Reports (Criminal) 308, the sentence under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was
reduced to the already undergone (1 year 11 months). In re: Chanan Singh
and others v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) Recent Criminal Reports
(Criminal) 913, also the sentence under Section 304(II) of I.P.C. was
reduced to the already undergone.
Criminal Appeal No.231-SB of 1998 -5-
The appellant herein has been facing the agony of trial or
ordeals of prosecution since March, 1996. Thus, this incident is more than
12 years old. He has been on bail since 23.3.1998 in this appeal. During
this period, he has not in any way abused the concession of bail or indulged
in any objectionable activity. He also remained on bail during the trial.
Precedentially, the right of the speedy justice is a fundamental right of the
appellant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any such event has
taken place, which may prompt this Court to take a serious view. Keeping
in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that
the proceedings have continued for more than 12 years, in my opinion, the
interest of justice would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of
imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. I make an order
accordingly. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged.
February 02, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No