Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 May, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -1-
(231) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.05.2023
SHIV KUMAR & OTHERS
... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Mohit Sadana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Sangrur whereby the appellants have been convicted under
Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default
of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2016, ASI Mehar
Singh, who was posted at Police Station, Sangrur, received intimation Ex.PK
from Civil Hospital, Sangrur, regarding the admission of injured Amanpreet
Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of House No.129, Ward No.14, Khalifa
Street, in the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, Sangrur. On reaching the
Hospital, Amanpreet Singh got his statement Ex.PJ recorded by submitting
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -2-
that he was a student of LL.B. 3rd year course and on 13.02.2016, he was
going on a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-13V-0989 make Pulsar
from his house to Gurdwara Sahib Jyoti Sarup in order to bring the milk from
the shop situated opposite to said Gurudwara Sahib. On reaching near the
Universal Book Depot ahead to the shop of Chunni Lal, three persons on a
black coloured motorcycle make Platina bearing registration No.PB-13X-
5546 came from the backside. It was at about 6.15 p.m. and all these three
persons on the said motorcycle started abusing him (complainant Amanpreet
Singh). One of those assailants was known to him and his name was Lucky
son of Ramesh Kumar @ Bintu, resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Sangrur. Lucky
gave a fist blow on his chest and also snatched his gold chain worn around
the neck. One of the other assailants gave him a fist blow on his face
resulting in the falling of his spectacles and the third accomplice also gave
him beatings. On raising an alarm, which led to the gathering of the people
from nearby, the accused sped away from the spot on their motorcycle, who
extended threats while leaving the spot. He (complainant) telephonically
informed his father about the incident who got him admitted at the Civil
Hospital, Sangrur, where he was medically examined. He (complainant),
thereafter on 14.02.2016 accompanied the police party to the place of
occurrence, where on his demarcation, the police prepared the rough site plan
and his supplementary statement was also recorded. Thereafter, the FIR in
this case was registered by Inspector Jatinder Pal Singh. The copy of the FIR
is Ex.PJ/2. Site plan Ex.PL was prepared. The medical record pertaining to
injured Amanpreet Singh was also obtained by the Investigating Officer.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -3-
3. On 18.02.2016, ASI Mehar Singh along with HC Sukhraj Singh
were present at the Police Station, when one Mahavir Singh son of Sunder
Ram, resident of Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sangrur along with Shiv Kumar @
Lucky, Sandeep Kumar Sahota and Kaku arrived at the Police Station,
Sangrur. All those three persons were arrested by the Investigating Officer
and personal search memos Ex.PC to Ex.PE, respectively, of the accused
were also prepared. Shiv Kumar accused produced motorcycle bearing
registration No. PB-13X-5546 along with a photocopy of its RC, which was
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. Statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On the completion of the investigation, a
challan against the three accused was presented in the Court for the offences
under Sections 323/506/34 IPC.
4. On presentation of the challan and appearance of the accused in
the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, copies of documents were supplied to them
free of cost as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
5. Thereafter, the accused were declared proclaimed offender as per
order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sangrur. Subsequently, accused Shiv Kumar surrendered in the Court on
10.10.2016 and was taken into custody. On moving of an application by the
prosecution, the offence under Sections 379-B/201 IPC were enhanced by the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. Thereafter, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sangrur, vide order dated 19.12.2016. The presence of the remaining two
accused namely Sandeep Kumar and Kaku were also procured through
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -4-
issuance of production warrants,as they were confined in jail in some other
case.
6. Thereafter, the final report was scrutinized and it was found that
a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 379-B, 323, 341,506, 34 of
Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused and they were charged
accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the
prosecution examined PW1 Raman Kumar, Record Clerk, Civil Hospital,
Sangrur, PW2 HC Sukhraj Singh, PW3 Amanpreet Singh, PW4 ASI Mehar
Singh, PW5 Surjit Singh, PW6 Dr. Baljit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Sangrur, PW7 Manoj Kumar Clerk DTO Office, Sangrur, PW8 ASI
Malkiat Singh and thereafter, the Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution
evidence.
8. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.
P. C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.
The accused did not opt to lead any evidence in defence.
9. Based on the evidence led, the appellants came to be convicted
and sentenced by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sangrur as
under:-
Names of Sections Sentenced Fine In default of
convicts payment
1. Shiv Kumar, 323/34 RI for 01 year Rs.1000/- RI for 01 month
2. Sandeep IPC each
Sahota
3. Kaku
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -5-
1. Shiv Kumar, 506/34 RI for 01 year Rs.1000/- RI for 01 month
2. Sandeep IPC each
Sahota
3. Kaku
1. Shiv Kumar, 341/34 SI for 01 month Rs.500/- SI for 07 days
2. Sandeep IPC each
Sahota
3. Kaku
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
10. The aforementioned judgment of conviction is under challenge
in the present appeal.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial
Court did not consider the inherent inconsistencies and glaring contradictions
in the prosecution version. The motive of the attack had not been established.
The witnesses who had deposed during the course of trial were all interested
witnesses and no attempt was made to join independent witnesses despite the
fact that the place of occurrence was a public place. He contends that the
accused/convicts came to be acquitted for having committed the offence
under Section 379B IPC and this fact itself falsifies the prosecution version
in its entirety with respect to the other offences as well. In fact, the injuries
are apparently self-suffered with a view to implicate the appellants. He,
therefore, contends that the judgment of conviction be set aside and the
appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
12. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
offence against the appellants is well-established from the evidence on
record. The medical evidence is totally in consonance with the ocular
account. Merely because the convicts have been acquitted for the offence
under Section 379B IPC did not falsify the prosecution version in its entirety.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -6-
He, therefore, contends that there was no reason to interfere with the
judgment of conviction and the appeal was liable to be dismissed. He has
also placed on record the custody certificates of appellant Nos.1 to 3, as per
which, appellant No.1 has undergone 11 months and 11 days, appellant No.2
has undergone 06 months and 15 days and appellant No.3 has undergone 06
months and 15 days out of the maximum sentence of 01 year.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
14. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution is well-established
from the deposition of the witnesses. The medical evidence is totally in
consonance with the ocular account. Merely because the convicts were
acquitted of the offence under Section 379B IPC would not demolish the case
of the prosecution in its entirety. Further, in the face of the evidence available
on record inculpating the appellants, the absence of any motive would pale
into insignificance
15. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no reason to
interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sangrur and finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same stands dismissed.
16. As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out that
the occurrence pertains to the year 2016. As many as 07 years have elapsed
ever since. There is no evidence that the appellants have committed similar
offences thereafter. Even otherwise, they have undergone a substantial period
of their custody as is borne out from the custody certificates placed on
record. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellants, their
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
2023:PHHC:063862
CRA-S-4102-SB-2017 (O&M) -7-
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The quantum of
fine and sentence in default shall however remain intact.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
02.05.2023
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:063862
7 of 7
