Judgment:
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. By filing instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, the accused appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.4.2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Laxmangarh, District Alwar (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 24/2003, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under:
Section 307/34 IPC:
Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 2000/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Rigorous Imprisonment.
Section 323/34 IPC:
Six months' Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 500/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, they shall undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.
Section 447 IPC:
One month Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 100/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo three days Imprisonment.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case, as set up by the prosecution are that complainant Dolya s/o Chuttan lodged a report at P.S. Laxmangarh on 29.10.2002, stating therein that on 29.10.2002 at about 8:00 AM in the morning he and his son Himmat were at their Boring and Kailash had come to take pipe. Crop of Mustard was standing in the field. Himmat went on seeing him. Chhagan @ Sagan, Hari Singh, Ram Niwas, Kishori, Kajodi w/o Kajodi Mamli, wives of Hari Singh and Sugan came with lathi, farsi, fawda, tancha in their hands and started demolishing boundary of their field. His son Himmat stopped them then they attacked on him. On listing noise, other persons came there and on seeing persons, accused persons ran away. Due to injuries, condition of Himmat became serious and grandson took Himmat to the hospital.
3. The police on the basis of this written report, registered an FIR No. 292/2002 for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 143, 148, 149 and 447 IPC and started investigation.
4. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 447, 307 and 34 IPC.
5. The learned trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 447, 307 and 34 IPC against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 22 witnesses and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide Judgment 1.4.2004 as mentioned above. The accused appellants being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence have preferred the instant criminal appeal.
8. Mr. Saini, learned Counsel for the accused appellants submits that PW 10 Mohan Lal and PW 13 Badlu are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. Both the witnesses have specifically stated in their testimony that they had not seen the alleged occurrence and the quarrel came to be ended before they reached at the place of incident. He submits that these persons have also stated in their cross examination that these persons did not see PW 3 Subba and PW. 4 Kailash, thus both the witnesses are not eye witnesses of the occurrence because if these witnesses were at the place of occurrence, then the presence at the place of occurrence ought to have been stated by PW. 10 Mohan Lal and PW. 13 Badlu. He submits that PW. 13 Badlu has not supported the case of the prosecution and has thus been declared hostile. He submits that there is great contradiction in medical evidence and oral evidence. He submits that which of the accused persons have caused on the head of injured Himmat is not clear from statements of any of the witnesses, He submits that the prosecution evidence is not trust-worthy and no reliance can be placed upon the same. He further submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. He submits that the eye-witnesses of the case are chance witnesses. Thus, the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and liable to be quashed and set-aside.
9. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned PP assisted by Mr. S.S. Sunda, learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned PP as also learned Counsel for the complainant for the State and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me.
A bare perusal of the evidence clearly reveal that the prosecution witnesses have made improvements and contradictions in their testimony regarding place of occurrence as also eye witnesses of the occurrence, which makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. Prosecution has also failed to explain the injuries which the persons from the side of accused, sustained. In view of above, the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court, in my considered view, requires modification.
11. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
12. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.4.2004, passed in Sessions Case No. 24/2003 is modified to the extent that all the accused appellants shall be released from confinement, on the already undergone period, if not required in any other case because in the instant case the accused appellant No. 1 Chhagan @ Sagan who at present is in judicial lock-up has remained in jail for near about 4 years and 11 months, accused appellant No. 3 Hari Singh, who has already been released by this Court on bail, has remained in judicial lock up for near-about 1 year and accused appellants No. 2 & 4 Kajodi and Ram Niwas, who have also been released by this Court on bail, have remained in judicial lock up, for more than 3-1/2 month. The accused appellant No. 1 Chhagan @ Sagan shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the injured Himmat and remaining accused appellants No. 2 to 4 namely; Kajodi, Hari Singh and Ram Niwas shall pay in total Rs. 6,000/- (each appellants Rs. 2,000/-) to injured Himmat for the severe injuries sustained by him, within a period of 3 months from today. The accused appellants No. 2 to 4 namely; Kajodi, Hari Singh and Ram Niwas, who are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.