Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vicky @ Bullet vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
CRA-S-4316-SB-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
226 CRA-S-4316-SB-2014
Date of Decision : November 05, 2024
VICKY @ BULLET
.....Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate and
Mr. Tushar Sabherwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhinandan Jindal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
1. The instant statutory appeal has been directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 15.9.2014 and the order of sentence of even date
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in case FIR No.
298 dated 6.8.2011, under Sections 307/326/323/324/427/34 IPC, Police
Station City Sangrur, whereby, the appellant was convicted for an offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 6 months and was also convicted for an offence punishable under
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
Section 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution agency was set into motion upon receipt of a
medical ruqa on dated 5.8.2011 regarding admission of one Sanjiv Kumar and
Pardeep Kumar in an injured condition. In response to the ruqa, SI Sukhpal
Singh alongwith other police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Sangrur to
record the statements of injured, whereupon Pardeep Kumar @ Kali (present
complainant) suffered a statement, which became bedrock of the present FIR.
The relevant extract of the statement reads as under:-
"On 5.8.2011 at about 9.30 P.M he alongwith his
brother Sanjiv Kumar were going to fountain Chowk, Patiala
Gate, Sangrur in car bearing no.PB-13 Y (T) 7034. They were
searching for a kiosk for purchase of cigarette. They had just
stopped when Bullat alias Vicky alongwith his brother Ram
Singh armed with kirpan, Hardeep Singh alias Rimpi son of
Gugani armed with kirches alongwith 10-12 unidentified
boys armed with kirches and lathies came there. They
attacked them with their weapons. They were taken out of the
car, Bullat alias Vicky gave kirch blow on the head of Sanjiv
Kumar with intention to kill him. Thereafter Ram Singh had
given Kirpan blow towards Sanjiv Kumar with intention to
kill him and Sanjiv Kumar had fallen on the ground. When he
was lying Hardeep Singh alias Rimpi gave kick blow on the
back side of head of Sanjiv Kuamr. On his raising alarm
Vicky alias Bullat gave a kirch blow on his arm. All the
accused gave kick blows and inflicted injuries with their
respective weapons to Sanjiv Kumar while raising Lalkara
that Sanjiv Kumar was proclaiming as "Badmash" of the
Basti, so he should not be left alive on that day. When he came
forward to save Sanjiv Kumar, then Bullat alias Vicky gave
the blow with reverse side of Kirpan on his left shoulder. He
also fell down. While lying down, he was given blow with
kirpan on the left upper side of ribs. Ram Singh also gave
blow with reverse side of kirpan on his left shoulder. He also
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
fell down. While lying down, he was given blow with kirpan
on the left upper side of ribs. Ram Singh also gave blow with
reverse side of Kirpan on left side of his neck. He became
unconscious. All the accused gave kick blows to him. They
raised the alarm but all the accused gave continuous beating
to them with intention to kill them. When they saw that he and
Sanjiv Kumar became unconscious then all the accused fled
away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons after
beating them. They were shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangrur by
Vicky and Ravi Chawla who suddenly reached at the spot.
Accused had also got broken the mirror of their car. The
motive behind the occurrence was that accused had a grudge
with Sanjiv Kumar."
3. The FIR (supra) was registered initially under Sections 326, 323,
427 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. After the completion of the
investigation, only three persons i.e. Vicky @ Bullet (present appellant), Ram
Singh and Hardeep Singh @ Rimpi were put to trial and all other accused
were declared as innocent. During the pendency of the trial, accused Ram
Singh was murdered on dated 3.7.2012, whereas, the other co-accused
Hardeep Singh @ Rimpi was declared as a proclaimed offender on dated
3.6.2014, therefore, only the present appellant was tried in the FIR (supra).
4. The learned trial Court concerned has framed charges under
Sections 307, 323, 427 IPC. Upon which the accused not pleaded guilty to
the charges and claimed trial, the prosecution was called upon to lead
evidence. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses.
5. The learned trial Court, after examining the entire record,
recorded the verdict of conviction against the appellant and sentenced him, as
mentioned above. This caused grievance to the present appellant and
propelled him to file the instant statutory appeal.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case,
injured-Sanjiv Kumar, who according to the prosecution has suffered
grievous injuries, which were subsequently declared dangerous to life, and the
medical report qua Sanjiv Kumar is of no significance, as he has not stepped
into the witness box, therefore, the material witness has been withheld. He
also submits that initially on two occasions, the doctor did not give any
opinion qua injuries suffered by the injured-Sanjiv Kumar, as dangerous to
life and in this regard, he has placed reliance upon Ex.P12 and P13
respectively, however, on third attempt made by the prosecution, the doctor
has given opinion to the extent that injuries as suffered by the injured-Sanjiv
Kumar "could be dangerous to life if the medical treatment was not given at
proper time". In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court towards
Ex.P15. He further submits that even the opinion of the doctor is not sufficient
to bring home the guilt of the present appellant for being convicted under
Section 307 IPC. He also submits that co-accused Hardeep Singh @ Rimpi,
who was declared as a proclaimed offender, was subsequently put to trial after
his arrest and on account of the compromise effected between the injured-
complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against him
and finally he was acquittal vide judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2017.
Finally, he submits that the instant matter has now been amicably settled inter-
se the parties and both the parties are living in the same vicinity and the
appellant has faced sufficient agony of the trial as well as incarceration, as he
has suffered more than 2 years in jail, therefore, the sentence awarded to the
present appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that
one of the injured-complainants has stepped into the witness box and he
categorically supported the case of the prosecution. He was put to lengthy
cross-examination but nothing material was elicited, which could create dent
in the case of the prosecution or which could impeach the credibility of the
witness. He further submits that though the other injured-person i.e. Sanjiv
Kumar did not step into the witness box but the doctor has proved the injuries
on the person of Sanjiv Kumar and he is a independent witness and the fact
that all the injuries were caused by the present appellant and other co-accused
has been established by complainant-Pardeep Kumar, who has stepped into
the witness box as PW3. He finally placed on record the custody certificate
qua the appellant, the same is taken on record. The custody certificate reflects
that the appellant has suffered incarceration of 1 year, 11 months and 22 days
and with remission, he has suffered incarceration of 2 years, 7 months and 2
days out of total sentence of 7 years imposed upon him.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
COMPLAINANT
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that
now the matter has been compromised and the complainant has no objection
in case the asked for relief is granted to the appellant.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both
the learned counsel for the parties concerned and is of the view that there is
no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction, however,
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
the order of sentence in view of the changed circumstances, requires
interference.
10. It is not in dispute that only three persons were put to trial by the
prosecution, and out of these three, one person has already died during the
trial and proceeding qua him was ordered to be abated, whereas the other co-
accused, namely, Hardeep Singh @ Rimpi has earned acquittal, as he was
separately tried on account of his being declared as a proclaimed offender vide
judgment of acquittal dated 28.2.2017 and the reason of acquittal is that the
main injured-eye witness has turned hostile. So far as the present appellant is
concerned, he is facing the agony of the trial since 2011 and he has suffered
incarceration of more than 2 years as on today and now the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties. The factum of compromise is duly
accepted by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is not in dispute that
both the parties are residing in the same vicinity. Learned counsel for the
appellant has also informed this Court that the appellant is not involved in any
other criminal case and he has now resettled in the mainstream of the society
and, therefore, sending him behind the bars after such a long period, would
not serve any purpose. Therefore, it is not either in the interest of the society
or the appellant by sending him again to the prison. This Court finds support
from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sk. Sakkar @ Mannan vs. State
of West Bengal, 2021(4) SCC 483 wherein the Supreme Court after considering
the mitigating circumstances reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
The relevant observations reads as under:
"11. It is manifest from Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it
stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of
five years RI and a fine of upto Rs.50,000/- was prescribed
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
but there was no minimum mandatory sentence. The
Legislature had in its wisdom left it to the judicious
discretion of a court to award the minimum sentence albeit
guided by the well known principles on the proportionality
of sentence. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the
ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant's
sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has
already undergone. We order accordingly."
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Issak Nabab Shah vs. The State of Maharashtra (Crl. Appeal
No.828 of 2020) wherein, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 10
to 6 years in case of commercial quantity under the the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and observed as under:-
"5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly when the quantity/Ganja recovered
from the appellant was 6.300 kilogram, which is between
small quantity and commercial quantity and considering
the fact that the maximum punishment for such offence is
10 years rigorous imprisonment, out of which the appellant
has already undergone six years rigorous imprisonment,
we allow the present appeal in part and modify the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court, confirmed by the High Court, to the extent of
imposing the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment
in place of ten years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by
the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
Rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby confirmed."
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143766
12. Considering the age of the accused, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, while maintaining balance between deterrence against crime
viz-a-viz re-formative approach of punishment, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the period of sentence of the appellant to the period
already undergone.
13. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment of conviction dated 15.9.2014 is upheld. However, the sentence
imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. The
sentence of fine is ordered to remain intact.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 05, 2024 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
8 of 8
