Reva Nand & Ors. v. The State of Haryana

Revision No.859 of 1998 would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same judgment. Appellants were tried for an offence under Sections 307/148/149/365/511 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') in an FIR No.445 dated 18.9.1993, registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal. Vide judgment dated 6.7.1998, the appellants were convicted for an offence under Sections 148 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. Vide order Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 2 dated 8.7.1998, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Hence, the appellants have filed the present appeal whereas the complainant/injured has filed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in para 1 of its judgment reads as under :- “Brief facts of this case are like that the present case was registered on the statement of Sheeshpal which he made to Ram Chander ASI in General Hospital, Karnal. The statement is Ex.PJ. In this statement he has mentioned that there are two villages, namely, Manglora one in Uttar Pradesh and another in Haryana. There is a Yamuna river in between. On the side of U.P. there is a Manglora ghat for which a ferry contract used to be given by U.P. Government and accordingly from 1993 to 1996 three years lease was given to one Raj Kumar by U.P. Government for a sum of Rs.3,15,000/-. Said Raj Kumar had also inducted other partners orally. While on the side of Haryana there is a Harijan Ghat, the lease of which for the year 1993-94 was given to one Khilari Ram by the Haryana Government for a sum of Rs.8,76,000/-. He has also inducted other partners in that lease and Sheeshpal was also one of them. On

18.9.1993 at about 4.00 P.M. when Sheeshpal, his brother Sita Ram, Khilari Ram contractor, Umrao Singh, Rajinder, Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 3 Ghansham and Tej Pal were sitting in a chhan which is fixed in the field of Hukam Singh Numbardar. From the side of U.P. all the accused came. Out of whom Jagbir Singh and Inderjit were armed with SBBL guns while the remaining accused Reva Nand, Babal, Sanjiv, Jai Singh and Amar Pal were armed with lathies. Immediately after reaching they started abusing stating therein why the complainant party used to put their boats on Manglora ghat. Saying this Jai Singh and Amar Pal caught hold of Khilari Ram contractor and tried to drag him towards Yamuna river in order to kidnap him. When the complainant and other persons tried to save Khilari Ram and also tried to object the taking away of Khilari Ram, Inderjit fired from the SBBL gun three times due to which Sheeshpal received gun shot on the left arm and two pellets in the abdomen. While Jagbir also fired two times but none was injured due to these fires because the complainant party has laid down on the ground. Thereafter the complainant party also took up dandas lying there and in self defence they have also caused injuries on the persons of the accused. They also raised alarm due to which the accused ran away towards U.P. alongwith their respective weapons in a boat. In the meantime one Vajinder son of Kartara came there, who took Sheeshpal to the hospital. The doctor sent a medical rukka Ex.PN, on which Ram Chander ASI sent to record the statement, after taking the copy of D.D.R. No.13 Ex. PO. After obtaining the Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 4 opinion from the doctor Ex.PO/1, he recorded the statement Ex.PJ of Sheeshpal on which endorsement Ex.PJ/1 was made and formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded. The investigation started. Statements of witnesses recorded. Site plan Ex.PP was correctly prepared. On 19.9.1993 five empty cartridges Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-8 were taken into police possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P.K. On 20.9.1993 accused Sanjiv, Jai Singh, Babbal and Reva Nand were arrested. On 21.9.1993 accused Inderjit was arrested. His SBBL gun and licence was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PQ. Gun is Ex.P9. On 28.9.1993 accused Jagbir and Amar Pal were arrested. SBBL Gun belonging to Jagbir was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PR. X-ray films Ex.P-1 to P-3 and X-ray report Ex.PH are also on the file. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was put in.” Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. In fact, the complainant party were the aggressor and the appellants had acted in self defence. No injury was attributed to appellants Amar Pal, Sanjiv, Jai Singh, Babbal and Reva Nand. The said appellants had been falsely involved in this case. Although, appellant Jagbir Singh had allegedly fired two shots, but nobody had suffered any injuries. Appellant Inderjit Singh had himself suffered number of injuries. There was no medical opinion as to whether the injury suffered by Sheeshpal was dangerous to life. Injured Sheeshpal had suffered simple injuries on his arm. The said injured had not suffered any fracture. Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 5 Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that all the appellants had come to the place of occurrence armed with deadly weapons and had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. In the present case, the occurrence is not in dispute. The case of the appellants was that they had acted in their self defence whereas the case of the complainant was that the appellants had opened the attack and injuries had been caused on the person of some of the accused in self defence by the complainant party. Injured Sheeshpal while appearing in the witness box as PW 4 deposed that on 18.9.1993 at about 4.00 P.M. his brother Sita Ram, Khilari Ram, Umaro Singh, Rajinder, Ghanshyam and Tej Pal were sitting in the field of Hukum Singh Numbardar. From U.P. side Inderjit Singh armed with a single barrel gun, appellant Jagbir Singh armed with single barrel gun and Reva Nand, Babbal, Sanjiv, Jai Singh and Amar Pal armed with lathies came and abused them as to why they had kept their boats in front of their platform ('ghat'). Amar Pal and Jai Singh caught hold of Khilari Ram and started dragging him towards Yamuna river. While they were attempting to get Khilari Ram released from the clutches of said accused, Inderjit Singh fired a shot towards them. He (Sheeshpal) received injuries on his left arm and abdomen. Jagbir also fired at them. His (Sheeshpal) associates gave stick blows on the person of Jagbir, Inderjit, Jai Singh and Amar Pal and they might have received some injuries. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Khilari Ram while appearing in the witness box as PW 5 had corroborated the statement of PW 4. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of the eye-witnesses PW 4 and PW 5. I have carefully gone through the statements of the said Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 6 eye-witnesses and their statements being natural, inspire confidence qua the involvement of appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh, Inderjit Singh and Jagbir Singh. A perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses PW 4 and PW 5 reveal that appellants Amar pal and Jai Singh had caught hold of Khilari Ram and they had started dragging him towards Yamuna river. When the complainant party tried to rescue them, appellants Inderjit Singh and Jagbir Singh had fired from their guns at the complainant party. As a result of this, Sheeshpal had suffered injuries. Empty cartridges were recovered from the spot which corroborate the eye-witness account to the effect that both Inderjit and Jagbir had fired towards the complainant party. However, no participation is attributed to appellants Sanjiv, Babbal and Reva Nand. Although, as per the eye-witness account appellants Sanjiv, Babbal and Reva Nand were armed with lathies, but they had not caused any injury to any person nor any specific role is attributed to them. The possibility that the said accused-appellants might have been falsely roped in this case cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, appellants Sanjiv, Babbal and Reva Nand are liable to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. PW 6 Dr. H.S. Randhawa, who had medico legally examined injured Sheeshpal found following injuries on his person:- (1) There were multiple, lacerated wounds unequal in size. Some were showing blacking on the margin, margin of some of the wounds were inverted and of some were everted. Fresh bleedings was present. These were present on the dorsal aspect of the left hand and fore-arm. Advised x-rays. (2) There were two small lacerated wound. Left lateral Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 7 lower part of the chest. Fresh bleeding was present. One was showing blacking on the margin. Fresh bleeding was present. Advised x-rays. (3) The left little finger was swollen and movements were restricted. Advised x-rays. As per the doctor, the injury No.1 and 2 were caused by fire arm and injury No.3 was caused with a blunt weapon. PW 3 Dr. G.S. Arora, who had conducted x-ray examination of the left forearm and chest of injured Sheeshpal, deposed that no fracture was seen in the x-ray of left forearm or left chest. Fracture was found on proximal phalnx of left little finger in the x-ray of left hand. PW 2 Dr. Pardeep Nigam, who had medico legally examined appellant Inderjit found following injuries on his person:-

1. Multiple abrasion (four in number) maximum length 2.5 cm and width 1.5 cm present on left side of back in upper part of scapula. There is no oozing. They were covered with dark red scab. There was no swelling.

2. Multiple abrasion on left side of back in lumber region. Maximum length 2 cm and maximum length 1.5 c.m. There was no oozing covered with dark red scab and no swelling.

3. Multiple bruises on right side of back in upper and middle portions. Colour was bluish red. Maximum length was 8 cm and width was 5 cm. There was no swelling.

4. A diffuse swelling involving left leg lower half upto foot. It was tender. X-ray was advised.

5. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.6 cm on posterrio lateral aspect of Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 8 right elbow covered with dark red scab, no swelling, no oozing.

6. Abrasions 2.5 cm x 1 cm on anterrio lateral aspect right knee lateral to patela dark red, no swelling.

7. Abrasion 5 cm x 1.5 cm on anterrio medial aspect right leg 10 cm above medial malleolous covered with dark red scab. No swelling.

8. Complain of pain right parietal region. No external injury mark visible.

9. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.6 cm on palmer aspect of right hand over lying metacarpal of in index finger. Yellowish discharge was present and no swelling.

10. Abrasion 3 cm x 1.2 cm on left side of cheek. No oozing colour was dark red. No swelling. The appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh, Inderjit Singh and Jagbir who were armed with weapons had attacked the complainant party in the alleged occurrence. Injured Sheeshpal has suffered fire arm injuries. The said injured had suffered fracture of finger on his left hand. The injured Sheeshpal had also explained while appearing in the witness box that the injuries on the person of the accused party had been caused in self defence. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the accused were the aggressors. Since appellants Inderjit Singh and Jagbir had fired at the complainant party from their respective guns the offence committed by appellants would fall within the purview of Section 307/34 IPC. The next question which requires consideration as to whether the Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 9 sentence is liable to be reduced in this case or not. The occurrence in this case had taken place in September 1993 and the appellants are facing the criminal proceedings since then. Appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh, Inderjit Singh and Jagbir have undergone one month and 21 days of actual sentence. Keeping in view the fact that appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh and Jagbir had not caused any injury to any person, their sentence is liable to be reduced to already undergone by them. So far as appellant Inderjit Singh is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, his sentence is also liable to be reduced to already undergone by him and his sentence qua fine is liable to be enhanced. The said appellant had also suffered injuries in the occurrence and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1993. The injured Sheeshpal had not suffered any fracture on his left forearm or left chest, but had suffered a fracture of finger of his left hand. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the injured Sheeshpal is awarded some compensation for the injuries suffered by him. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion appellants Sanjiv, Babbal and Reva Nand are acquitted of the charge framed against them, whereas the conviction of appellant Inderjit Singh is maintained under Section 307 IPC and the conviction of the appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh and Jagbir is maintained under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction of the said appellants under Section 148 IPC is set aside. Sentence qua fine of appellants Amar Pal, Jai Singh and Jagbir is maintained and their sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by them. Fine, if not deposited, be deposited within two months from today failing which their appeal shall stand dismissed. Crl. Appeal No.547-SB of 1998 Crl. Revision No.859 of 1998 10 Sentence qua imprisonment of appellant Inderjit Singh is reduced to already undergone by him and sentence qua fine is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- on deposit by appellant Inderjit Singh be released to injured Sheeshpal forthwith. Appellant Inderjit Singh is directed to deposit the additional fine of Rs.50,000/- and the fine imposed by the trial Court (if not already deposited) within four months from today, failing which the appeal qua him shall stands dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the injured Sheeshpal is dismissed. June 28, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE