IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 66-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 31.10.2008
***
Narata Ram & others
.. Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
for the appellants
Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
9.1.1997/14.1.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri,
whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence
under Sections 307/323 read with Section 34 IPC Under Section 307 IPC,
the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months while under Section
323 IPC, they have been sentenced to RI for three months. Dissatisfied
with the sentence, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
Brief facts are that Vijay Kumar, a resident of village Nawa
Sehar who was employed with Indian Army and was posted at Srinagar, had
been availing long leave. His father Surjit Singh was working as a peon
with Jagdholi school. On 13.09.1993 at about 6 A.M., his father Surjit Singh
came out of his house for going towards the fields for easing himself. Mehar
Chand had engaged his daughter Sukh Devi at village Khera on 10.09.1993.
Those people of Khera village came to village Nawa Sehar and they refused
to accept her as the bride. Mehar Chand and his brothers suspected Surjit,
father of Vijay Kumar complainant to have done the back biting. For this
enemity his father Surjit was intercepted by the accused on his way to the
Crl. Appeal No. 66-SB of 1997 -2-
fields. Ashok Kumar having gandasi with him raised a lalkara. He exhorted
his companions not to spare Surjit for the back biting. Mehar Chand was
having gandasi in his hand. He rushed towards Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh
however ran towards his house. However they could not enter the house and
Mehar Chand gave a blow with gandasi on the head of Surjit Singh. Ashok
Kumar gave two blows with his gandasi on the head of Surjit Singh. Narata
and Parshada who were having lathis in their hands started giving blows
with the same to his father. Vijay Kumar and his cousin Roshan Lal who
were there inside the house were attracted. They rushed out of the house and
saw the occurrence just outside of their house. Parshada gave two blows
with his lathi and Narata gave one blow with his lathi to Vijay Kumar. Roop
Chand who happened to pass by saw the occurrence and rescued the injured
from the hands of the accused. Vijay Kumar gave blows to the accused in
his self defence. He and his father Surjit Singh were brought to Civil
Hospital Jagadhari. On receipt of rukka from the Civil Hospital Jagadhari
Kuldeep Singh H.C. went to the Civil Hospital and on his application Surjit
Singh was declared unfit to make statement. He recorded the statement of
Vijay Kumar and sent the same with his endorsement to the police-station
on which the case was registered by Gian Chand MHC. Kuldeep Singh H.C.
then recorded the statement of Roshan Lal. He inspected the spot and
prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He also recorded the
statement of Roop Chand u\s 161 Cr.P.C. He received the report of X-Ray
of the injuries of Surjit Singh on 22.09.1993, he recorded the statement of
Surjit Singh on 23.09.1993 after Surjit Singh was declared fit to make
statement. Injuries nos. 1 to 3 of Surjit Singh were declared dangerous to
life and section 307 I.P.C. was added to the case. The investigation then was
handed over to Harinder Singh ASI on 27.09.1991. The accused were
arrested. At the time of arrest the weapons of offence were produced by the
accused and were recovered by Harinder Singh ASI. The opinion of the
doctor regarding the injuries of Surjit Singh being caused by gandasi was
obtained. Surjit Singh had handed over his clothes to Harinder Singh ASI
on 1.10.1993 which were sealed. On completion of investigation challan
against the accused was prepared by Zile Singh S.I.
To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the
prosecution examined PW-1 Om Parkash, PW-2 Roop Chand, PW-3 Vijay
Crl. Appeal No. 66-SB of 1997 -3-
Kumar, PW-4 Banarsi Dass, PW-5 Surjit Singh, PW-6, PW-7 Zile Singh,
PW-8 Gian Chand, PW-9 Constable Surjit Singh, PW-10 ASI Harinder
Singh, PW-11 Dr. Rajbir Singh and PW-12 HC Kuldip Singh and after
tendering into evidence the report of the FSL, closed its evidence.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the
appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication
in the case. In defence, they examined Dr.Rajbir Singh
After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, however, on
the basis of evidence brought on record, convicted the appellants under
Section 307/323 IPC and sentenced them in the manner indicated above.
Hence, the instant appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the record carefully.
Counsel for the appellants has confined his argument for
reduction of sentence. Stress is that Narata Ram, Mehar Chand and Ashok
Kumar have undergone 4 months of sentence and so as Ram Parshad two
months of sentence and they are facing the agony of trial since 1997. The
arguments have been scanned. The purpose of criminal law justice is to
bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society and also to give an
opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. In appropriate cases,
leniency be shown and opportunity is required to be given to the accused to
reform themselves by adopting reformative approach. It is not in dispute
that the parties are co-villagers. It has also not been indicated that during
all these years, they had any further tiff among themselves. If the
appellants are sent behind bars, it will revive the old enmity between the
parties in the village. They have already suffered agony of long trial/appeal
for the last more than 11 years. Therefore, it would be expedient in the
interest of justice to take a lenient view that the sentence awarded to the
accused deserves to be modified and the injured-complainants can be
granted compensation.
For the foregoing reasons, the sentence awarded to the
appellants stands reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is
further made clear that the appellants shall pay Rs.20,000/- each as
compensation to the injured persons, namely, Surjit Singh and Vijay
Kumar, within three months from today failing which the appeal shall be
Crl. Appeal No. 66-SB of 1997 -4-
treated as dismissed.
The appeal stands disposed of in the terms indicated
above.
October 31, 2008 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE