Manjit Singh @ Kala and Another Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

CRR No.3550 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3550 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:

10. 02.2014 Manjit Singh @ Kala and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab for the State. R.P. Nagrath, J.

The petitioners faced trial for offences under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted them of the said offences and awarded them the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 30 days under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine to Kumar Suresh 2014.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3550 of 2013 2 further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 30 days under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was challenged in appeal. The learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and to six months' Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, maintaining the imposition of fine and the default clause. The facts of the case as emerged during the trial are that on 13.5.2009 Rajinder Singh complainant alongwith his wife was going towards their village Ramkot in a jeep. The petitioners were riding on motorcycle ahead of the jeep. Manjit Singh was driving the motorcycle. They did not give way to the complainant to cross the motorcycle despite blowing horn, by keeping their motorcycle in the middle of the road. At about 9.00 p.m. when they reached near the house of Manphool son of Mallu Ram, both the accused stopped their motorcycle and halted jeep of the complainant on the road. Manjit Singh told to teach the complainant a lesson in attempting to cross their motorcycle. Manjit Singh petitioner inflicted a fist blow on the complainant's nose and Harpreet Singh petitioner also gave a fist blow on his upper lip and they took the complainant and his wife out of the jeep and threw them on the road due to which the complainant suffered injuries on his left and right knees. Complainant further stated that while he was lying on the ground, petitioner Manjit Singh gave him a kick blow on the thumb of his left Kumar Suresh 2014.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3550 of 2013 3 hand. On raising hue and cry, Iqbal Singh brother of the complainant reached the spot and saved him from the clutches of the accused. It was also stated that during that fight the purse of complainant containing licence and some other documents and mobile phone of Spice Company had fallen at the spot. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR was registered and further investigation was carried out. Accused were arrested and released on bail. Their motorcycle was also taken into possession. The story of prosecution was testified by the complainant by appearing as PW1, his wife Sukhdeep Kaur (PW2) and Iqbal Singh PW3. PW4 Dr. Ajay Narang conducted medico-legal examination of complainant on 13.5.2009 itself and found the following injuries on his person:-

“1. Diffuse swelling with overlying abrasion 0.25 x 0.25 cm on bridge of nose. Bleeding from nostrils was present. X-ray was advised.

2. Swelling over middle and back of left thumb. X-ray was advised.

3. An abrasion 2 cm x 1.25 cm on front of right knee.

4. An abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on front of left knee.

5. Reddish swelling 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm on inner side of upper lip in its middle was present.”

. There was absolutely no reason for the complainant party to falsely implicate the accused in this FIR. Kumar Suresh 2014.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3550 of 2013 4 On analysing evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have come to a categoric finding, holding petitioners to be guilty. After perusal of the record of the trial Court and the judgements of the Courts below, I find that this conclusion is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence and there is no scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the conviction of the petitioners recorded by the Courts below and confined his arguments qua quantum of sentence only. Custody certificates dated 8.1.2014 of the petitioners placed on record by learned State counsel show that till date, the petitioners have undergone actual sentence of about 03 months and 20 days. They also earned some days of remission as mentioned in the custody certificates. In view of the above, the circumstances of the case and that the incident took place about 4½ years ago it would be sufficient if the sentence is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC maintaining the imposition of fine by the trial Court. The sentence as reduced by the learned Appellate Court under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is also maintained. The revision petition qua merit is dismissed, but partly allowed with regard to the quantum of sentence as aforesaid. Kumar Suresh 2014.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3550 of 2013 5 Copy of the judgement be sent to all concerned for compliance. (R.P. Nagrath) 10.02.2014 Judge sk Kumar Suresh 2014.02.18 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh