Judgment:
CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.DECIDED ON:- 01.04.2013 1.
Hardev Singh @ Deba son of Assa Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of village Sarli Khurd, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar; 2.
Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha son of Assa Singh, son of Sunder Singh, resident of village Sarli Khurd, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar:
3.
Kabal Singh son of Assa Singh son of Sunder Singh, resident of village Sarli Khurd, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar and 4.
Assa Singh son of Sunder Singh son of Bhag Singh, resident of village Sarli Khurd, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar..............Appellants versus State of Punjab .............Respondent CORAM HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH Present:- Mr.D.S.Pherumen, Advocate, for appellants Nos.1 and 3.
Appellants Nos.2 and 4 since died.
Mr.S.S.Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent assisted by Mr.PBS Goraya, Advocate for complainant.
S.P.BANGARH, J Case of the prosecution / respondent is that the land of Swaran CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.2 Singh, complainant, resident of village Sarli Khurd, an agriculturist by occupation, adjoins the land of Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died).with whom he had quarrelled many a time.
On 27.01.1997 at about 07:30 p.m, Swaran Singh, complainant along with his wife, his daughter-in-law and his son Dalbir Singh was present in his house located in village Sarli Khurd.
At that time, his son Dalbir Singh was beating his wife and Swaran Singh, complainant and his wife dissuaded their son Dalbir Singh, as also, scolded him.
On hearing the noise, Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died).whose house is located on the back side of their house, started hurling invectives upon them.
Electric bulb was blowing in the courtyard of their house at that time.
Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) armed with gandali, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha (appellant no.2, since died) armed with gandali, Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) armed with dang and Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) empty handed, emerged in the street in front of the house of the complainant and they were hurling invectives also.
They asked Dalbir Singh son of the complainant to come out of his house.
Thereupon, Dalbir Singh son of the complainant came out in the street.
Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) raised a lalkara that Dalbir Singh be caught hold.
Thereupon, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha (appellant no.2, since died) gave gandali blow on the left leg of Dalbir Singh, Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) gave gandali blow on the lower part of knees of Dalbir Singh.
Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) gave second blow to Dalbir Singh on his head, who fell down on the ground.
Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) gave dang blows to Dalbir Singh while he was lying down on he ground.
Other appellants also continued beating him.
The complainant party raised an alarm of 'killed killed' and all the appellants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons.
Mukha Singh of his village Sarli Khurd took Dalbir Singh to civil hospital, CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.3 Amritsar, where he was medicolegally examined.
Copy of the medicolegal report was sent to Incharge, police post Takhtu Chak, (police station Verowal) on 29.01.1997.
On receipt of medico-legal report of Dalbir Singh, Jagir Singh, ASI / Incharge of (police post) Takhtu Chak, (police station Verowal) along with other police officials reached civil hospital, Amritsar.
On reaching there, he moved application Ex.PE before the doctor to seek opinion as to whether Dalbir Singh, injured was fit to make statement.
Doctor made endorsement Ex.PE/1 on the application Ex.PE and declared Dalbir Singh unfit to make statement.
Swaran Singh, complainant met ASI supra in the hospital.
His statement Ex.PD containing the facts supra was recorded by Jagir Singh, ASI.
This statement Ex.PD was also read over and explained to Swaran Singh, complainant and the latter after admitting genuineness and correctness, thereof, thumb marked the same.
Thereafter, Jagir Singh, ASI made his endorsement Ex.PD/1 on the statement Ex.PD and sent the same to police station Verowal, where, formal FIR Ex.PD/2 was recorded by Ajit Singh, ASI.
Later, Swaran Singh, complainant handed over blood stained shirt of Dalbir Singh, injured to Jagir Singh, ASI, that was sealed into a parcel, that was seized vide memo Ex.PF.
Thereafter, Jagir Singh, ASI visited the place of occurrence along-with Swaran Singh, complainant and other police officials and prepared rough site plan Ex.PD of the place of occurrence.
Later, Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1).Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha (appellant no.2, since died),Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) and Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) were arrested in this case and weapons Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 were recovered from them, that were seized vide memo Ex.PG.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of police station Verowal instituted police report under Section 173 of the Code of CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.4 Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that the appellants have committed offence punishable under Sections 307/324/323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Sections 207 Cr.P.C were supplied to the appellants and the case was committed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the learned Court of Session, that was entrusted to learned trial Court, who framed charge under Sections 307/324/323IPC read with Section 34 IPC against all the appellants, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, prosecution examined, as many as, six witnesses whose depositions are as under:- PW1 Dr.Rattan Jit Singh, then Emergency Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Amritsar deposed that on 28.01.1997 at 11:20 a.m, he mediCo.legally examined Dalbir Singh son of Swaran Singh, aged 32 years male, resident of village and Post Office Sarli and found the following injuries on his person:- 1.
An incised wound 8 cms x 1 cm on the left side of the head 12 cms above the left ear.
Clotted blood was present, depth of the wound was not probed:
2.
An incised scratch 7 cms x ½ cm on the left side of front of the chest:
3.
An abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of front of abdomen:
4.
An abrasion 1 cm x 0.2 cm on the front side of the abdomen, 4.5 cm inwards and below the injury no.3:
5.
An incised wound 2 cms x 1 cm on the left side of the pubic bone, clotted blood was present.
Depth of the wound was not probed.
The patient was catheterized:
6.
A reddish blue contusion 7 cms x 2 cms on the left iliac crest: CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.5 7.
An abrasion 2 cms x 1 cm on the left hip joint:
8.
An abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the upper and outer region of left thigh and 9.
An incised wound 3 cms x 1 cm on the front side of the left leg in the middle.
Clotted blood was present.
Depth of the wound was not probed.
According to PW1, injuries Nos.1 and 9 were kept under observation subject to x-ray examination.
Injury no.5 was kept under observation subject to operation notes.
The rest of injuries were simple in nature.
Kind of weapon used was sharp edged for injuries Nos.1,2 5 and 9, blunt for injuries Nos.3,4,6 and 8.
According to PW1, probable duration of the injuries was within 24 houRs.MLR was handed over to the police.
PW1 brought the original medico-legal report and proved carbon copy Ex.P1, thereof, that was prepared in the same process.
He further deposed that after receipt of operation notes given by Dr.Shabegh Singh and Dr.Parshotam Gera, he gave his opinion regarding injury no.1 as dangerous to life of the injured vide his report Ex.PB.
He further deposed that operation notes were with him and photocopy, thereof, is Ex.PC.
He further deposed that no operation notes were received for injury no.5 and no x-ray was received for injury no.9.
PW2 Swaran Singh, complainant deposed that he has two sons, eldest of whom is Dalbir Singh, injured, who assists him in cultivation.
He also deposed that his younger son is employed in electricity board and the fields of Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died).accused present in Court, adjoins his fields and there used to be altercation due to dispute of common boundary line of the fields.
He further deposed that on 27.01.1997, at about 07:30 p.m, he, his wife Dalbir Kaur and his son Dalbir Singh along with his wife Balinder Kaur were present in the house and Dalbir Singh was quarrelling with his wife and he and his wife prevented Dalbir Singh from CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.6 beating his wife Balwinder Kaur and he started abusing his son.
He further deposed that backside of the house of Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) touches the backside of his house and in the mean time, Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) empty handed, Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) armed with gandali, Sukha (appellant no.2, since died) armed with dang, all present in the Court, came in front of his house, where the electric bulb was blowing and Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) raised a lalkara addressing his son Dalbir Singh that if he is born from the womb of his mother, he should come out.
On hearing this lalkara, Dalbir Singh came out empty handed and Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) raised a lalkara that Dalbir Singh should not be allowed to go and should be done to death, so as to put an end to the daily quarrels.
PW2 further deposed that Sukha Singh (appellant no.2, since died) gave gandali blow to Dalbir Singh on his left leg, Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) gave a gandali blow hitting Dalbir Singh on his testicles, who repeated a gandali blow hitting Dalbir Singh on his head.
Dalbir Singh fell down on the ground and after he (Dalbir Singh) had fallen down on the ground Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) gave a dang blow and other appellants continued giving blows to Dalbir Singh with their respective weapons.
He further deposed that they raised an alarm of 'killed killed' and his wife Balwinder Kaur had witnessed the occurrence and when they raised alarm, appellants fled away with their respective weapons.
He further deposed that he and Mukha Singh removed Dalbir Singh to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he was medicolegally examined.
He further deposed that Dalbir Singh remained unconscious for 10/15 days and after two days of occurrence i.e on 29.01.1997 at about 02:30/03:00 p.m, he made his statement Ex.PD to ASI Jagir Singh regarding this occurrence, that was read over to him and he thumb marked the same in token of its correctness.
CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.7 PW3 Dalbir Singh is the injured.
He narrated the entire prosecution version in his deposition, as has been narrated by PW2, which has also been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment.
PW4 Rishi Ram, Draftsman deposed that he prepared site plan of the place of occurrence.
PW5 Jagir Singh, ASI, conducted the investigation of this case and deposed on the lines of investigation.
Case property i.e blood stained shirt Ex.P1 of injured Dalbir Singh, weapons Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 recovered from the appellants during investigation were produced during the deposition of this witness.
PW6 Dr.Shabegh Singh, Medical Officer, PHC Bham, District Gurdaspur deposed that on 27.01.1997, he was posted as junior resident, surgery unit No.3, again said surgery unit no.4, where Dalbir Singh patient was admitted and as per his endorsement Ex.PE/1 on Ex.PE, patient was declared unfit to make statement.
He was admitted with multiple injuries on the head and body in the state of unconsciousness.
He was irritable due to head injury.
He was put on conservative treatment for head injury for five days and he remained unconscious and his CT scan was done on 29.01.1997 vide No.123 which showed following report:- Posterior cossa structure including forth ventricles are normal.
Basal cistern suical space and Rt.
sylvian fissure are effected.
A small hypodence collection of 25-30 HV is seen in the sphrnoid sinus.
Oblique fracture of base of petrous bone and squamus part of right temporal bone was seen.
Fracture of the parietal bone was also seen on the right side.
A hypodense area of 4 cms x 2 cms x 4 cms x 3 cms with irregular hyperdense area of 70-74 HV is seen in the right temporo- parietal region.
Causing compression of the epsilateral lateral ventricle.
No significant midline shift was seen.
No EDH/SDH seen.
IMPRESSION Hemorrhagic contusion with multiple fracture with cerebral CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.8 edema.
not the patient is semiconscious and delirious and not responding to command, still under treatment for head injury and other injuries.
OPERATION NOTES:- Under local anaesthesia an incised wound present on the left parietal region lying obliquely extending to the right parietal region, bleeding profusely, cutting the skin underlying fascia and there was fracture of the underlying bones, wound closed in layeRs.ASD done.
Ex.PC is the correct photostat copy of progress report and operation notes, which bears his signatures.
Dr.
Parshotam Gera was alongwith him.
Original bed head ticket of patient including original report and operation notes were brought by PW6.
After examination of six aforementioned witnesses, respondent closed its evidence.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, they denied the allegations of prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
They were called upon to enter in defence and they examined Balbir Kaur as DW1, who deposed that as per summoned record that Bira Singh son of Swaran Singh attended the office for the months of January and February 1997, as per the attendance register.
She proved the photocopies of the attendance registers Ex.DX and Ex.DY respectively.
DW2 Dr.Paramjit Kaur, SMO, Incharge,CSE, Fatehgarh Churian, Amritsar deposed that she conducted medico-legal examination on Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) on 28.01.1997 at 07:00 a.m, who was brought by Assa Singh (appellant no.4, since died) at 06:00 a.m on 28.01.1997 and found the following injuries on his person:- 1.
A contusion 10 cms x 5 cms on the right side of the back in the lumbar region, complaints of pain:
2.
A contusion 5 cms x 3 cms on the left side of the back near the midline in the lum sum region:
3.
An incised wound 6 cms x 1.5 cm on the extension surface of the right CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.9 forearm, 4 cms above the wrist joint, bone cut under neath, blood oozing out and 4.
A contusion 5 cms x 4 cms on the middle of the back.
This witness further deposed that injury no.3 was declared grievous and all others were simple in nature.
She also deposed that injury no.3 was caused with sharp edged weapon and all other injuries were by blunt weapons.
The probable duration of injuries was within 12 houRs.DW2 also brought the original medico-legal register copy, thereof, is Ex.DZ and she also proved pictorial diagram Ex.DZ/1 showing the seats of injury on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1).Thereafter, the appellants closed the defence evidence.
After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment passed in Session Case No.24 of 1997/1999, emanating from FIR No.8 dated 29.01.1997, police station Verowal convicted Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of `1,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC vide impugned order of sentence.
While appellants Nos.2,3 and 4 were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of `1,000/- each and in default, thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Appellants were also convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each, vide impugned judgment and order of sentence.
Aggrieved against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, all the appellants, who were accused before the learned CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.10 trial Court, have come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for their acquittal of the charge framed against them by the learned trial Court.
Appellants Nos.2 and 4 namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha and Assa Singh respectively had died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the same stood abated in terms of Section 394 Cr.P.C.Order in this respect was passed by this Court on 11.12.2012.
not the appeal only survives in respect of appellants Nos.1 and 3 namely Hardev Singh @ Deba and Kabal Singh respectively.
Regarding the incident which had taken place on 27.01.1997, at about 07:00 p.m, in the area of village Sarli Khurd in front of the house of complainant and his son Dalbir Singh, who was injured in this incident, there is unanimous evidence of PW2 and PW3, that has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment.
Both deposed according to the allegations contained in the FIR that was lodged by PW3 as immediately after the incident, PW3 Dalbir Singh injured became unconscious and, therefore, his statement, was not recorded by the police for lodging the FIR against the appellants, about the occurrence that had taken place in front of his house.
The unanimous evidence of PW2 and PW3 candidly reveals that Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) raised lalkara and exacerbated other appellants to cause injuries to Dalbir Singh, injured (PW3) with their respective weapons.
The injuries numbering nine were caused by the appellants Nos.1,2 and 4.
These have been narrated by PW2 and PW3.
They were subjected to searching cross examination by learned counsel for the appellants before the learned trial Court, but their cross examination failed to elicit anything worth the name, which could possibly cause any dent in their testimonies.
No motive can be ascribed to them to depose falsely in this case.
CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.11 Delay in lodging the FIR had taken place, as the injured was not in a position to make statement about the occurrence and police waited for his regaining consciousness by him and when he could not do so, statement of his father (PW2) Ex.PD was recorded by the police, since, he happened to be present at the time of occurrence, whose presence at the spot does not become doubtful in any manner.
The ocular evidence of PW2 and PW3 depicting injuries on the person of PW3 has been supported by the medical evidence of PW1 and PW6, whose testimonies also during cross examination could not be shattered.
There is, thus, no variation or contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence.
There is nothing on the record to indicate that the injuries numbering nine were self suffered.
Learned trial Court declined the version of the appellants given through the depositions of DW1 and DW2.
There were three contusions on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) and one incised wound on his wrist joint.
DW2 had not advised x-ray for injury no.3.
Without advising x-ray, DW2 declared this injury grievous in nature.
No depth of the cut of bone was given by DW2.
Therefore, learned trial Court rightly concluded that injury no.3 on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba could not be declared grievous in nature.
Even, DW2 deposed that the possibility of injuries on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) being self suffered or by friendly hands cannot be ruled out.
This opinion can be relied upon and possibly injuries on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) were not caused by the appellants while, on the contrary, these might have been self suffered or caused by friendly hands.
So, in these circumstances, it is arduous to hold that the appellants caused injuries to PW3 in self defence.
Apart from that, against four simple hurts on the person of Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) causing of nine injuries on the person of PW3 Dalbir Singh was teRs.transgression of right of private defence, CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.12 even, if it is assumed that the appellants caused injuries to PW3 in self defence.
In other words, the appellants exceeded their right of private defence.
There is, thus, no gain saying about the incident that had taken place on 27.01.1997 in the area of village Sarli Khurd wherein, PW3 was injured by appellants Nos.1,2 and 4 on the instigation of appellant no.3.
Even, learned counsel for the appellants did not assail the findings of the leaned trial Court, so far as, the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, is concerned.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the injury no.1 on the person of PW3 was wrongly declared dangerous to life of PW3 and, therefore, the learned trial court wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to this contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellants and find merit, therein.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Atma Singh versus The State of Punjab (D.B) 1982(2) CLR 496.passed by this Court wherein, accused was found to have caused injuries with a knife on the chest of injured; no intention to cause death was proved; accused could be said to have intended to cause grievous hurt to the injured; injury inflicted by accused was opined by the doctor, as dangerous to life was declared grievous in nature.
It was held that the injury which 'endangered life' must be held to be of grievous nature.
It was held that the expression 'dangerous' is an adjective and the expression 'endanger' is verb.
An injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as 'dangerous to life' and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life', he means an injury which endangers life in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, for, it CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.13 describes the injury 'dangerous to life' only for the purpose of the said clause.
He instead of using the expression that this was an injury which 'endangered life' described it that the injury was 'dangerous to life', meaning both the times the same thing.
It was held in Atma Ram's case (supra) that the Court is not absolved of the responsibility, while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert's opinion notwithstanding.
The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused.
Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life, the court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned.
It was also held that wherever a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life' and the nature of the injuries is such which could merit such a conclusion, then such an injury has to be treated as 'grievous hurt' of the description mentioned in fiRs.portion of clause (8) of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant in this case was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and his conviction was converted into one for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
In the case in hand, the doctor who performed the operation did not give any opinion about the injury being dangerous to the life of PW3, who was injured in the incident.
He was the proper person to declare injury no.1 as 'dangerous to life' of PW3, as he had seen the damage having been caused to the body of the injured.
When he has not declared the nature of injury no.1 'dangerous to life' of the injured, the opinion given by PW1 in this regard cannot be accepted, especially when it is not proved that the appellants had intention to kill the injured.
So, it follows that this injury no.1 itself was not dangerous to the CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.14 life of the injured and the same falls within the ambit of Section 320(8) IPC, which reads as under:- 320.
Grievous hurt.
— The following kind of hurt only is designated as “grievous”.
Eighthly.
- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
So, in these circumstances, it must follow that the injury no.1 on the person of the injured PW3 was wrongly declared dangerous to his life.
While, on the contrary, it was required to be declared grievous in nature, as per clause eighthly of Section 320 IPC.
The charge against the appellant is under Section 307 IPC, which reads as under:- Attempt to murder: - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten yeaRs.and shall also be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life]., or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
A perusal of section 307 IPC would reveal that there has to be an intention to cause the death of the injured.
There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the appellants caused injuries to PW3 with an intention to kill him.
If the appellants had intention to kill PW3, only then they could be convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
The intention and knowledge are the matter of inference from the totality of the circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results.
So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the latter were wrongly convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is upheld and the appellants Nos.1 and 3 namely Hardev Singh @ Deba and Kabal Singh respectively are acquitted of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and in its place, they are CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.15 convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively.
Appellant no.1 Hardev Singh @ Deba is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, while appellant no.3 Kabal Singh is convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
However, their conviction under Section 323 IPC is upheld and affirmed, as the same has also not been assailed.
Resultantly, the appeal of appellants Nos.1 and 3 namely Hardev Singh @ Deba and Kabal Singh respectively is partly allowed.
Their conviction under Section 307 IPC and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively is set aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 326 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively.
Their conviction under Section 323 IPC is maintained, which shall run concurrently with the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, for which, they have been convicted.
It may be mentioned here that Hardev Singh @ Deba (appellant no.1) has undergone about one year imprisonment, while Kabal Singh (appellant no.3) has undergone about six months of imprisonment.
They are not the previous convicts.
The incident had taken place on 27.01.1997.
The appellants have already suffered agony of this litigation for a period of sixteen yeaRs.During this period, appellants Nos.2 and 4 namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha and Assa Singh respectively have died.
Facing of agony of this litigation by the appellants Nos.1 and 3, as also, their detention in jail, would have brought tremendous mutation in their behaviour towards the fellow denizens and it is expected that they will not repeat such type of incident in future.
Therefore, lenient view regarding imposition of sentence is taken and they are, accordingly, sentenced to the period of detention already CRA NO.942-SB OF 200.16 undergone by them in jail during investigation, trial and pendency of this appeal.
However, they shall pay compensation of ` 50,000/- jointly and severally to Dalbir Singh (injured) PW3, which shall be deposited in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran within a period of two months from today.
The sentence of fine, as imposed, shall remain intact, as it is.
(S.S.SARON) (S.P.BANGARH) JUDGE JUDGE 01 04.2013 mamta 1.Whether the Reporters of the Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.Yes 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
Yes 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
Yes