Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 v. State of Haryana

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, and Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999 as they arise out of the same occurrence. -2- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 has been preferred by appellants Jagga Ram and Bhim against the judgment of conviction dated 26.2.1999 and the sentence order dated

5.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicting and sentencing appellant Bhim under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and convicting and sentencing appellant Jagga Ram under Section 324 of the Code. Under Section 326 of the Code, appellant Bhim was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 324 of the Code, appellant Bhim was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the substances sentences of imprisonment awarded to appellant Bhim were, however,ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Jagga Ram, under Section 324 of the Code, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Raju, co-accused of the appellants was acquitted of the charges framed against him as there were no specific allegations against him. Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999 has been filed by petitioner-complainant Pawan Kumar praying for remanding the case to the trial Court for considering the evidence afresh so that -3- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. Raju (acquitted accused) may not escape his liability for having shared the common intention along with other accused and further that all the accused may be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Code for offences under Sections 326, 324 and 323 of the Code. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement (Exhibit P.G) made by complainant Pawan Kumar before Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh. As per the case of the prosecution, on 30.4.1994 at about 8.30/9 P.M, complainant Pawan Kumar and Jai Singh were sitting in their shop which was being constructed by them near Saini Dharamshala Tohana. In the meantime, appellant Bhim and Raju (acquitted accused) came there. Bhim was armed with a knife whereas Raju was armed with a `Gandasa'. They started abusing Pawan Kumar etc. In the meantime, Dhulia, father of complainant Pawan Kumar and Jai Singh came there. Appellant Jagga Ram, while armed with a `Gandasa' and Ronak Ram (since deceased), armed with a `Lathi' also came there. Appellant Bhim gave two knife blows to complainant Pawan Kumar on his right hand whereas appellant Jagga Ram gave `Gandasa' blow to Jai Singh. The alarm raised by the complainant party attracted Chandi Ram to the spot, who was also given beatings by the accused with their respective weapons. The complainant party threw stones and brick-bats on the accused party in self defence. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that there was some dispute over a parcel of land between complainant Pawan Kumar etc. on the one -4- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. hand and Ronak Ram etc. on the other hand. About two and a half years back, another occurrence had taken place between both the parties and both the parties were challaned for causing injuries to each other. That case was still pending in the trial Court at Tohana when the instant occurrence taken place. On completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was put in the Court against the accused. The accused were put to trial for the offences under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Code. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Sub Inspector Balbir Singh (P.W.1), Dr. Sunil Bajaj (P.W.2), complainant Pawan Kumar (P.W.3), Jai Singh (P.W.4) and Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh (P.W.5). After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which they denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. According to the accused, a false counter case by the complainant party was got registered against the accused by the complainant party to defend themselves in case State Vs. Chandi Ram etc. under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of Ronak Ram. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In this case, as has been observed by the learned trial Judge, there was a free fight between the parties. So, -5- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. individual act of each of the accused is to be seen. It may be mentioned here that the complainant party, including the father of complainant Pawan Kumar, in the cross-version, was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under various Sections of the Code including Section 302 of the Code. The appeal filed by the complainant party bearing Criminal Appeal No.145-DB of 1999 was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated

30.5.2008 whereby the judgment of conviction of the trial Court was upheld with some modification on the point of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Code. Conviction of Chandi Ram, accused therein was set aside and he was convicted under Section 325 of the Code. In this case, as stated above, accused-appellant Bhim was armed with a knife and gave injuries with it to Chandi Ram and complainant Pawan Kumar whereas accused-appellant Jagga Ram gave injuries with `Gandasa' to Jai Singh. Both Pawan Kumar (P.W.3) and Jai Singh (P.W.4), having received injuries in the occurrence, are the stamped witnesses of the prosecution. They have completely supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated each other on all material particulars. Their testimonies gave corroboration from the medical evidence furnished by Dr.Sunil Bajaj (P.W.2). Dr. Sunil Bajaj (P.W.2) had observed two incised wounds on the person of Chandi Ram on his left little finger and left pinna. As a result of injury on the left little finger, there was partial amputation of the terminal phalanx of -6- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. the finger. On x-ray examination, fracture of terminal phalanx was found and the injury was declared grievous in nature. Both the injuries were sharp-edged weapon injuries. The injury on the left little finger of Chandi Ram, thus, would attract the provisions of Section 326 of the Code. However, injuries on the person of complainant Pawan Kumar, which were incised wounds on right wrist, anterior aspect of right forearm, lacerated wound on occipital region besides tenderness and swelling of left index finger, were opined to be simple in nature by Dr.Sunil Bajaj (P.W.2), falling within the purview of Section 324 of the Code. The injuries on the person of Jai Singh i.e incised wound on the back vertically placed skin deep and lacerated wound on right occipital region, which were attributed to appellant Jagga Ram having been caused by `Gandasa', were declared simple by Dr.Sunil Bajaj (P.W.2), attracting the provisions of Section 324 of the Code. As such, both appellants Bhim and Jagga Ram have rightly been convicted under Sections 326 and 324 of the Code. In this case, Raju (acquitted accused), who was allegedly armed with a `Gandasa' at the time of occurrence, did not cause any injury. No overt act was attributed to him. As such, he has rightly been acquitted by the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment of conviction. In view of the above, conviction of appellant Bhim under Sections 326 and 324 of the Code and that of appellant -7- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. Jagga Ram under Section 324 of the Code, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of these appellants for more than fifteen and a half years, the occurrence being of April, 1994, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of appellant Bhim on two counts, i.e under Section 326 of the Code ( rigorous imprisonment for two years) and 324 of the Code ( rigorous imprisonment for one year) and that of appellant Jagga Ram under Section 324 of the Code ( rigorous imprisonment for one year), is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. I order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court upon appellant Bhim under Sections 326 and 324 of the Code and upon appellant Jagga Ram under Section 324 of the Code shall remain unaltered. The total fine imposed on appellant Bhim under Sections 326 and 324 of the Code is Rs.1500/-. In case he fails to deposit the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The fine imposed upon appellant Jagga Ram under Section 324 of the Code if Rs.500/-. In case he fails to deposit the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to appellant Bhim under Section 326 and 324 of the Code i.e rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count, shall run concurrently. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 is dismissed. -8- Criminal Appeal No.312-SB of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999. Resultantly, Criminal Revision No.1003 of 1999 is also dismissed. January 29, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE