{"id":149606,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-20T18:38:32","modified_gmt":"2017-04-20T13:08:32","slug":"partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                             -1-\n\n                                     ***\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                        Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998\n                        Date of decision : 3.12.2008\n\n                              ****\n\nPartap Singh and others                               .....Appellants\n\n                  Versus\n\nThe State of Haryana                                  ...Respondent\n\n                              ****\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND\n\nPresent:    Mr. R.K.Handa,Advocate for the appellants.\n\n            Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana\n\n            Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.\n\n\nS. D. ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The appellants( Partap Singh, Phool Chand, Dinesh, Hans Raj<\/p>\n
and Rohtash son of Hari Ram) were convicted by the learned Trial Judge<\/p>\n
for the offences under Sections 147, 148 IPC and 323, 325 read with<\/p>\n
Section 149 IPC; while appellants (Sarjit and Mool Chand ) were convicted<\/p>\n
for the offences under Sections 147, 148 IPC and 323, 325, 307, read with<\/p>\n
Section 149 IPC. All the appellants\/accused were sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC, six months RI<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 323 IPC and two years RI and a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.2000\/- each for offence punishable u\/s 325 IPC. In case of a default in<\/p>\n
the payment of fine, all the accused were ordered to undergo further<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one month. Learned Trial Judge also sentence accused<\/p>\n
Sarjit Singh and Mool Singh to RI for a period of five years and a fine of
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\nRs.5000\/- each under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In default of<\/p>\n
the payment of fine, those two accused were ordered to undergo further<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
            The prosecution presentation, at the trial, was as under:-<\/p>\n
            Truck bearing registration No.RRB-3065, of which             PW-2<\/p>\n
Omkar was the registered owner, was attached with the truck operators<\/p>\n
union, Nangal Chaudhary. A meeting of registered owner of the trucks<\/p>\n
attached with that union was held in the month of Sawan\/Bhado of the year<\/p>\n
1990. PW-2 Omkar and four others, namely, Man Singn, Abhey Singh,<\/p>\n
Partap Singh and Jagbir Singh were elected by the union as their<\/p>\n
representatives. Besides it, Omkar was elected as Pardhan of the union.<\/p>\n
For few days, the union were proceeded smoothly.           However, in the<\/p>\n
second meeting of the union, Partap Singh appellant made a suggestion<\/p>\n
that there should be enhancement of the freight rate. That proposal was<\/p>\n
shot down by majority. After the meeting was over, Omkar was sitting in a<\/p>\n
field in front of the office of truck union in the company of Jagbir, Balbir,<\/p>\n
Abhey Singh, Amar Singh, Ram Chander, Hazari and one Ishwar Singh<\/p>\n
(who has since died). Appellant Partap Singh, accompanied by the other<\/p>\n
appellants, came over there. At that time, appellant Sarjit was armed with<\/p>\n
an iron rod; while other appellants were armed with a Lathi each.<\/p>\n
Appellant Moola Ram declared that they were around to teach Omkar a<\/p>\n
lesson for not allowing the freight rate to be enhanced. Omkar went over<\/p>\n
to the protesting appellants and tried to reason it out with them. Appellant<\/p>\n
Moola Ram gave a lathi blow each on the head and right hand of Omkar,<\/p>\n
who, on sustaining those injuries, fell down upon the ground and became<\/p>\n
unconscious. The other appellants, thereafter, caused injuries to Ishwar,<\/p>\n
Amar Singh, Ram Chander, Hazari and Abhey Singh. Jagdish and Balbir<\/p>\n
Singh rescued them and removed them to Primary Health Centre, Nangal
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\nChaudhary where they were medico-legally examined. From there, three<\/p>\n
out of them ( Ram Chander, Amar Singh and Hazari), who had sustained<\/p>\n
grievous injuries, were referred to General Hospital, Narnaul.<\/p>\n
            The offence was notified to the police by PW-2 Omkar, vide<\/p>\n
his statement Ex. PB.\n<\/p>\n
            PW-1 Pehlad Sharma, a Draftsman practising at Narnaul, had<\/p>\n
inspected the spot on 15.9.1990 and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.<\/p>\n
PA, on the police request, on the pointing of Jagbir and Ishwar Singh.<\/p>\n
            PW-2 Omkar is the first informant\/injured witness. Besides<\/p>\n
him, PW-4 Amar Singh, PW-7 Abhey Singh, PW-10 Ram Chander and<\/p>\n
PW-11 Hazari are also injured Pws\/eye witnesses.<\/p>\n
            PW-3 Dr. Viney Chaudhary, had radiologically examined the<\/p>\n
injuries on the person of Ram Chander, Amar Singh and Abhey Singh<\/p>\n
( from the complainant side) and also Mool Singh and Sarjit Singh out of<\/p>\n
the appellants. The following fractures were found on the person of Ram<\/p>\n
Chander:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.   Fracture of right olecranon process of ulna.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.    Fracture of lower end of right fibula.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.    Fracture of 2nd metacarpal of left hand.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.    Fracture of shaft of left ulna and lower end of radius.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            A fracture of Nasal bone was found on the person Amar<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            Fractures of comminuted fracture of left tempro parietal and<\/p>\n
left frontal bone were found on the person of Hazari.<\/p>\n
            Fracture of lower shaft right radius was found on the person of<\/p>\n
Abhey Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the appellants Mool Singh and Sarjit are concerned,<\/p>\n
no bony injury was found on their person. They, too, had otherwise been
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\nexamined on the request of the police.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-5 HC Rawat Singh recorded the formal FIR Ex. PB\/1, on<\/p>\n
receipt of ruqqa Ex. PB.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-6 HC Dilbag Singh had attested memo Ex. PG vide which<\/p>\n
appellant Mool Chand had got recovery of iron rod effected from behind<\/p>\n
the bushes near lime-kiln.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-8 Dr. S.R.Dharkar had examined Hazari Lal injured (who<\/p>\n
remained hospitalised after 6.9.1990) on 26.8.1990, he, during the period<\/p>\n
of hospitalisation, was operated upon on 30.8.1990 for depressed fracture<\/p>\n
left parietal and extra dural haemotoma.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-9 Dr. Vimal Sardana had operated upon Hazari Lal who<\/p>\n
had compound depressed fracture with underline extra dural haemotoma<\/p>\n
in left parietal region.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-12 HC HC Rohtash had partly investigated this case<\/p>\n
inasmuch as he had recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Of Amar Singh, Ram Chander and Hazari.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-13 Inspector Udai Singh had investigated this case.<\/p>\n
              PW-14 Dr. Vijay Bansal had medico-legally examined Hazari,<\/p>\n
Amar Singh and Ram Chander and found the following injuries on their<\/p>\n
person:-\n<\/p>\n
Hazari Lal:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              1. 1.5 x 0.2 cm lacerated wound on the temporoparietal bone 5<\/p>\n
                cm above the left ear. Bleeding was present. Bone was<\/p>\n
                exposed. Wound was horizontal in direction and x-ray was<\/p>\n
                advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                       ***\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm reddish skin abrasion over the centre of the<\/p>\n
               occipital bone. Swelling all around was present. X-ray was<\/p>\n
               advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Amar Singh:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          1. Lacerated wound 15 cm x 0.5 cm on the temporoparietal<\/p>\n
               bone of the right side 5 cms above the ear.           L-shape<\/p>\n
               bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2. 4 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound above the left eyebrow,<\/p>\n
               bleeding was present. Muscles were exposed. X-ray was<\/p>\n
               advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3. 3cm x 0.5cm skin abrasion horizontal over the lower portion<\/p>\n
               of sternum. X-ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4. Skin abrasion over the left shoulder joint 3 x 1.5 cm slightly<\/p>\n
               on the medial side. X-ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          5. Swelling on the left lower arm in the middle. Over it 1.5cm x<\/p>\n
               .5cm skin abrasion. X-ray was advised.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          6. .5 x .1 cm lacerated wound over the bridge of nose. Lateral<\/p>\n
               surface on the left side, slight swelling of nose was present.<\/p>\n
               Bleeding was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ram Chander:\n<\/p>\n
          1. 1 cm x .3 cm x .3 cm lacerated wound on the posterior<\/p>\n
               surface of right elbow joint. Oblique. Bleeding was present.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2. 1 cm x .1 cm oblique lacerated wound over the left side of<\/p>\n
               parietal bone, 8 cms above the left ear. X-ray was advised.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3. 3 cm x .2 cm lacerated wound over the lateral surface left<\/p>\n
               ear lobule. Cartilage was exposed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                      ***\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4. Swelling of the right ankle joint alround. No external injury<\/p>\n
                was seen. Movements were tender. X-ray was advised.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             5. 1 cm x .5 cm lacerated wound on the dorsal surface of left<\/p>\n
                index finger base. X-ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6. Swelling of left wrist joint. No external injury was seen. X-<\/p>\n
                ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             7. Swelling of left forearm in the middle.     There was slight<\/p>\n
                disfigurement 1 cm x .5 cm skin abrasion was over it. X-ray<\/p>\n
                was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8. .3 x .3 cm reddish skin abrasion over the lateral aspect of<\/p>\n
                left elbow joint. Swelling was all around. X-ray was advised.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             He had further opined that injuries no. l and 2 on the person of<\/p>\n
Hazari were dangerous to life.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-15 Dr. Nirmala Bishnoi had medico legally examined<\/p>\n
Omkar, Ishwar Singh, Abhey Singh and Sarjit and found the following<\/p>\n
injuries on their person:-\n<\/p>\n
Omkar:-\n<\/p>\n
             1. A lacerated wound over the parietal region left side about<\/p>\n
                10.5 cm and 1.2 cm bleeding was present. The edges were<\/p>\n
                irregular and the direction was longitudinal.       X-ray was<\/p>\n
                advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. Abrasion was over the right forearm middle 1\/3rd 7 cm x 1<\/p>\n
                cm. Slightly bleeding was present on dorsal side.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3. An abrasion over the right hand dorsal side .5 cm x .2 cm.<\/p>\n
                Redness was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ishwar Singh:\n<\/p>\n
             1. Lacerated wound on the right eye 1 cm x 2 cm laterally<\/p>\n
                slight bleeding was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                       ***\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Lacerated wound on the left eye 2.5 cm x .2 cm laterally.<\/p>\n
               Bleeding was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Bruise mark on the right thigh anterio-laterally 12 cm x 5 cm.<\/p>\n
               Redness was present on the upper 1\/3rd of thigh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4. Bruise mark on the left thigh front side upper 1\/3rd region 6<\/p>\n
               cm x 3 cm in size. Redness was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Abhey Singh:\n<\/p>\n
            1. Swelling was present on the lower 1\/3rd of right forearm.<\/p>\n
               Tenderness was present. X-ray was advised.\n<\/p>\n
Sarjit:\n<\/p>\n
            1. One incised wound on skull right side of parietal region<\/p>\n
               longitudinal about 6 cm x .6 cm moderate bleeding was<\/p>\n
               present. Edges were regular. Depth 1 cm. Advised X-ray of<\/p>\n
               skull.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Complaint   of   pain   on    occipital   region,   Protuberans.<\/p>\n
               Tenderness present. Advised X-ray skull.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            She had also examined Mool Singh and Rohtash son of Hari<\/p>\n
Ram appellant on that very day and had found the following injuries:-<\/p>\n
Mool Singh:-\n<\/p>\n
            1. An incised wound on skull parietal region left side<\/p>\n
               horizontally about 7 cm x .8 cm and 0.8 cm in depth. Edges<\/p>\n
               were regular.    Moderate bleeding was present.           X-ray of<\/p>\n
               skull was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Complaint of pain on left forearm middle 1\/3rd swelling was<\/p>\n
               present. Advised x-ray left forearm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rohtash:\n<\/p>\n
            1. One lacerated wound on right foot dorsal side at second and<\/p>\n
               third metacarpal bone about 3 cm x .6 cm. Bleeding was
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\n                present. Edge regular.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. One abrasion mark on forehead just above the eyebrow<\/p>\n
                about 3 cm x .8 cm. Bleeding was present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Dua had examined Hazari Lal on<\/p>\n
24.8.1990.\n<\/p>\n
             Appellant Sarjit denied the prosecution allegation and alleged<\/p>\n
false implication by averring in the course of his statement under Section<\/p>\n
313 Cr.P.C.:-\n<\/p>\n
             “I am innocent. The real facts are that myself, Partap Singh<\/p>\n
             and Mool Singh my brothers and my father Megh Singh as<\/p>\n
             well as complainant party used to carry transport business.<\/p>\n
             The complainant party used to put obstacles in our transport<\/p>\n
             business. My father Megh Singh had filed an injunction suit<\/p>\n
             against the complainant party not to create hindrances in our<\/p>\n
             business.   The civil court had granted temporary injunction<\/p>\n
             against the complainant party and they had grouse against us.<\/p>\n
             On 19.08.1990 Subhash son of Mahada Ram and Ram Niwas<\/p>\n
             son of Ram Kumar went to Mool Singh and asked him to take<\/p>\n
             their buffaloes from their village Bhojawas to Jobener in truck<\/p>\n
             No.HYD-1577. On the same day at about 5 p.m. Mool Singh<\/p>\n
             went to village Bhojawas with his truck No.HYD-1577. I and<\/p>\n
             Rohtash accompanied him. When the buffaloes were being<\/p>\n
             loaded in the truck, Omkar, Ram Chander, Hazari, Man Singh,<\/p>\n
             Abhey Singh, Bhoop Singh, Amar Singh, Jagbir, Ramesh,<\/p>\n
             Suresh and Attar Singh reached there in truck No.HYL-4575.<\/p>\n
             All of them asked Mool Singh not to carry buffaloes from there<\/p>\n
             and started giving him fists and slaps. The glasses of truck<\/p>\n
             No.HYD-1577 were damaged. On the same day, at about 6
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\n            p.m. Mool Singh, I myself and Rohtash accompanied by Ram<\/p>\n
            Niwas and Subhash reached Nangal Chaudhary on their way<\/p>\n
            to Jobner when Man Singh etc. stopped Mool Singh’s truck by<\/p>\n
            placing their truck in front of his truck.     Moll Singh was<\/p>\n
            dragged out of the truck. Jagbir and Omkar caught hold of<\/p>\n
            Mool Singh. Man Singh inflicted a Pharsi blow on his head.<\/p>\n
            Ram Chander gave a lathi blow on his head, Amar Singh gave<\/p>\n
            a lathi blow on his head. When I tried to intervene, Hazari<\/p>\n
            inflicted Kulhari blow on his head. Bhoop Singh and Abhey<\/p>\n
            Singh caused injuries to me with their lathis. When Rohtash<\/p>\n
            conductor tried to save me, Ramesh, Suresh and Attar Singh<\/p>\n
            caused injuries to me with their lathis. The occurrence was<\/p>\n
            witnessed by Ram Niwas, Subhash, Partap, Ishwar Singh and<\/p>\n
            Surja Ram.      The injured were taken to PHC Nangal<\/p>\n
            Chaudhary where they were medico-legally examined. The<\/p>\n
            police under the influence of complainant party did not take<\/p>\n
            action against the culprits and hence the complaint was filed<\/p>\n
            by Mool Singh etc. against the culprits in court which is still<\/p>\n
            pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.<\/p>\n
            Hari Ram, Rohtash son of Bhola Ram, Lal Chand, Dinesh,<\/p>\n
            Phool Chand, Tek Chand, Hans Raj, Hanuman and Megh<\/p>\n
            Singh were not present at the spot. Balbir Singh PW was also<\/p>\n
            not present. It is a false case and I am innocent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The similar plea has also been taken by appellants Mool Singh<\/p>\n
and Rohtash son of Hari Ram.\n<\/p>\n
            Appellants Hari Ram, Hans Raj, Rohtash son of Hari Ram,<\/p>\n
Phool Chand and Dinesh raised plea of alibi.,<\/p>\n
            Appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence.
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                  -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ***
\n              Insofar as the prosecution presentation is concerned, it was<\/p>\n
testified on oath by PW-2 Omkar\/first informant and also by PW-4 Amar<\/p>\n
Singh, PW-7 Abhey Singh, PW-10 Ram Chander and PW-11 Hazari<\/p>\n
injured PWs. Each one of them detailed the sequence of events, starting<\/p>\n
from the controversy about the enhancement of freight rate and<\/p>\n
culminating in the belabouring of the injured PWs at the hands of the<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellants argues in favour of the<\/p>\n
invalidation of the impugned finding of indictment by pointing out that the<\/p>\n
prosecution had not been able to fix the identity of the appellants as the<\/p>\n
perpetrators of the crime in view of the fact that no Test Identification<\/p>\n
Parade was held. He further argues that the prosecution has not been<\/p>\n
able to prove on record any motive which could have actuated the<\/p>\n
appellants to belabour the injured PWs. Yet another plea, argued in the<\/p>\n
alternative, is that it were injured PWs who opened an attack upon some of<\/p>\n
the members of the appellants party who were available at the spot. The<\/p>\n
plea in the context, is that the appellants Mool Chand and Sarjit acted in<\/p>\n
self-defence and that Appellants Hari Ram, Hans Raj, Rohtash son of Hari<\/p>\n
Ram, Phool Chand and Dinesh were not at all present at the spot and they<\/p>\n
have been roped in falsely.\n<\/p>\n
              Insofar as the plea on point of non holding of the Test<\/p>\n
Identification Parade is concerned, it is to be merely noticed to be<\/p>\n
negatived. The parties belong to the same village, It is not the plea of<\/p>\n
either side that they participated in the impugned occurrence under a<\/p>\n
mask. In that view of things, it is illogical for the appellants to raise a plea<\/p>\n
of acquittal just because a Test Identification Parade was not held.      Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, it must be noticed that Test Identification Parade is only one of<\/p>\n
the methods adopted to buttress the prosecution presentation.                An
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                 -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         ***
\notherwise validly proved prosecution plea cannot be thrown out just<\/p>\n
because a Test Identification Parade had not been got held, particularly<\/p>\n
when the parties to the impugned prosecution were not in the know of each<\/p>\n
other’s identity, being village mates.\n<\/p>\n
            It is neither here nor here for the appellants to argue that the<\/p>\n
prosecution had not been able to prove any motive on the part of the<\/p>\n
appellants to belabour the members of the complainant party. Omkar and<\/p>\n
other injured PWs have categorically testified at the trial that appellant<\/p>\n
Partap Singh whose proposal for enhancement of freight rates was shot<\/p>\n
down by majority, was nursing a grievance against first informant and<\/p>\n
other injured PWs who belong to the group of Omkar PW. The existence<\/p>\n
of groupism in the truck union is not a foreign phenomenon. That being<\/p>\n
so, the plea advocated on behalf of the appellants shall stand rejected, It<\/p>\n
requires pertinent notice that the members of the complainant party, who<\/p>\n
too were prosecuted by the appellants in a cross case, stand acquitted and<\/p>\n
no appeal has come to be preferred against the order of acquittal in their<\/p>\n
favour.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellants, then, argues that<\/p>\n
appellants Hari Ram, Hans Raj, Rohtash son of Hari Ram, Phool Chand<\/p>\n
and Dinesh were not even available at the spot at the time of impugned<\/p>\n
occurrence and they have been framed only because of their association<\/p>\n
with the appellant party.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellants aforementioned have not been able to adduce<\/p>\n
acceptable evidence on file to prove that they were not available at the<\/p>\n
spot at the relevant point of time. It was for those appellants to indicate<\/p>\n
their whereabouts at the time of impugned occurrence had taken place.<\/p>\n
Though the prosecution cannot be absolved of the responsibility to prove<\/p>\n
the charge against the appellants, it has to be noticed that the plea of alibi
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                                 -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ***
\nhad to be proved by the concerned appellants themselves. If those<\/p>\n
appellants were so inclined, they could have opted (in their own discretion)<\/p>\n
to enter the witness box and disclose where exactly they were at the time<\/p>\n
of impugned occurrence had taken place. The mere fact they did not<\/p>\n
sustain any injuries in the course of impugned occurrence, is not sufficient<\/p>\n
to warrant that they were not available at the spot at the relevant point of<\/p>\n
time. It would not be out of place to make here a mention of the fact that<\/p>\n
only Mool Singh and Rohtash had sustained injuries on their person that<\/p>\n
too were simple in nature. As against it, a fairly large number of injuries<\/p>\n
were found on the person of members of the complainant party and injuries<\/p>\n
found on the person of Ram Chander, Amar Singh, Hazari and Abhey<\/p>\n
Singh totalled as many as eight fractures.\n<\/p>\n
            No other point was argued.\n<\/p>\n
            In the light of the foregoing discussion, I find no reason to<\/p>\n
invalidate the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge.<\/p>\n
However, insofar as the appellants Partap Singh, Phool Chand, Dinesh,<\/p>\n
Hans Raj and Rohtash son of Hari Ram are concerned, they were<\/p>\n
convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148 IPC and 323, 325<\/p>\n
read with Section 149 IPC. In view of the fact that they faced the ordeal of<\/p>\n
trial\/appeal since the year 1990, I am of the opinion that interest of justice<\/p>\n
would be served if the benefit of reformatory provisions of the Probation of<\/p>\n
Offender Act is given to them. The order on point of sentence qua them<\/p>\n
shall stand set aside. They shall stand released on on probation for one<\/p>\n
year on their furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.10,000\/- with one surety in<\/p>\n
the like amount, for a period of one year to appear and receive sentence<\/p>\n
whenever called upon during this period and, in the meantime, to keep the<\/p>\n
peace and be of good behaviour.\n<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the appellant Surjit Singh and Mool Singh are
\n Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998                               -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***
\nconcerned, both of them have been proved        have to participate in the<\/p>\n
impugned occurrence while the former was armed with an iron rod and<\/p>\n
latter was armed with a lathi.    The evidence available on the file is,<\/p>\n
however, not sufficient to uphold the finding of conviction under Section<\/p>\n
307 IPC. That finding proceeds upon the statement made by PW-14 Dr.<\/p>\n
Vijay Bansal.    However, in the course of the cross-examination, he<\/p>\n
conceded that “I had given my opinion Ex. PKK\/1 on the basis of the x-ray<\/p>\n
report mentioned in the police application. I had not seen the x-ray report<\/p>\n
myself.”   It is apparent that the X-ray report and x-ray films were not<\/p>\n
available when Dr. Vijay Bansal gave the opinion aforementioned. The<\/p>\n
reliance placed by Dr. Bansal upon the contents of the police plea in the<\/p>\n
relevant behalf would not appear to be in order. The conviction recorded<\/p>\n
against Mool Singh and Sarjit Singh under Section 307 IPC shall stand set<\/p>\n
aside. They shall stand convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC.<\/p>\n
            In view of the fact that the appellants Surjit Singh and Mool<\/p>\n
Singh faced the ordeal of trial\/appeal since 1990, the sentence awarded to<\/p>\n
them is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.<\/p>\n
            The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
December 03, 2008                                  (S. D. ANAND)\nPka                                                     JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.9-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 3.12.2008 **** Partap Singh and others …..Appellants Versus The State of Haryana …Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPartap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3349,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":3349,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008","name":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-20T13:08:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/partap-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Partap Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}