Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jalaur Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 14 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
CRA S-489-SB-2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102 CRA S-489-SB-2003 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.11.2024
Jalaur Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Farhad Kakli, Advocate for
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby, the appellants have
been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Name of the convicts Offence Sentence
Jalaur Singh, 148 IPC R.I. for six months each and a
Lachhman Singh, fine of Rs.500/- each and in
Bakhtaur Singh, default of payment of fine
Dilbag Singh and further RI for 15 days each.
Mangal Singh
Jalaur Singh, 450 IPC R.I. for five years each and a
Lachhman Singh, fine of Rs.1000/- each and in
Bakhtaur Singh, default of payment of fine
Dilbag Singh and further RI for 03 months each.
Mangal Singh
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
Mangal Singh 326 IPC R.I. for five years and a fine of
Rs.1000/- each and in default
of payment of fine further RI
for 03 months.
Jalaur Singh, 326/149 IPC R.I. for five years each and a
Lachhman Singh, fine of Rs.1000/- each and in
Bakhtaur Singh and default of payment of fine
Dilbag Singh further RI for 03 months each.
Bakhtaur Singh and 323 IPC R.I. for six months each and a
Lachhman Singh fine of Rs.500/- each and in
default of payment of fine
further RI for 15 days each.
Jalaur Singh, Dilbag 323/149 IPC R.I. for six months each and a
Singh and Mangal fine of Rs.500/- each and in
Singh default of payment of fine
further RI for 15 days each.
Dilbag Singh 323 IPC R.I. for six months and a fine
of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine further RI for
15 days each.
Jalaur Singh, Bakhtaur 323/149 IPC R.I. for six months each and a
Singh, Lachhman fine of Rs.500/- each and in
Singh and Mangal default of payment of fine
Singh further RI for 15 days each.
Jalaur Singh 323 IPC R.I. for six months and a fine
of Rs.500/- each and in default
of payment of fine further RI
for 15 days.
Lachhman Singh, 323/149 IPC R.I. for six months and a fine
Bakhtaur Singh, of Rs.500/- each and in default
Dilbag Singh and of payment of fine further RI
Mangal Singh for 15 days.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of
the statement made by Pal Singh, who alleged that they were five
brothers and his brothers, namely, Balvir Singh, Lal Singh and Jit
Singh had expired. Malkiat Singh was alive. All the five brothers
were joint owners of 14 Kanals of land and all of them were in
possession of the same. They had sown narma crop in the said land. A
case was pending regarding this land with Bhagwan Singh son of Pal
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
Singh in the Court at Moga and all the five co-sharers had been
spending money equally. On 06.09.2000 Pal Singh and his wife Surjit
Kaur went to pick cotton of their share in the land and had an
altercation with Jalaur Singh, Dilbag Singh and Mangal Singh all
accused. He and his wife were pushed out of the fields by saying that
the complainant and Jit Singh had no share in the land and told them
that he would take his share as well as share of Jit Singh with the help
of police. At about 10.00 a.m., on 06.09.2000 they were sleeping in
the courtyard by closing the door and in the meantime, Mangal Singh
armed with Gandasa, Jalaur Singh armed with gandasa,
Dilbag Singh, Bakhtaur Singh and Balvir Singh armed with dangs,
forcibly opened the door and entered his house. Bakhtaur Singh and
Lachhman Singh accused gave dang blows on the waist and right arm
of his son Jagsir Singh and laid him on the ground. Darbara Singh
gave a dang blow to his daughter-in-law Amarjit Kaur due to which
she fell down and received injuries on both of her elbows. They also
gave kick blows on her right thigh. He came forward raising noise 'Na
Maro Na Maro' then Mangal Singh gave a gandasa blow on his head
from its sharp side. On hearing noise, Gurmail Singh son of
Gurbachan Singh, Majbi, resident of Charik, who was serving in the
land of Baba Kalu, came to their house. Then Jalaur Singh gave a
gandasa blow from its blunt side on his back. They raised noise
'Marta Marta', then the accused ran away from the spot with their
respective weapons, hurling abuses and stating that they have handed
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
over the possession through police. In the meantime, Gurjit Singh
Panch reached the spot who got them admitted in the Hospital by
arranging conveyance, where they were medically examined and
treated.
3. On the basis of the statement made by Pal Singh
complainant, the FIR in the present case was ordered to be registered.
4. After the presentation of the challan all the accused were
charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 148,
326, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined
Pal Singh as PW1. In his deposition, Pal Singh had reiterated the
version as mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution further examined
Jagsir Singh as PW2, who also supported the statement of PW1 Pal
Singh. The prosecution further examined PW3 ASI Atma Singh, who
had initially conducted the investigation in the present case. On the
date of occurrence, he alongwith other police officials went to the
hospital and recorded the statements of injured Pal Singh and made an
endorsement and sent the rukka to the police station, on the basis of
which the FIR Ex. PC was registered by the police. He arrested the
accused in the present case and recovered the weapon of offence from
them. On receiving the X ray report on 18.09.2000, the offence was
enhanced to 326 IPC.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
6. The prosecution further examined PW4 Gursewak Singh,
Draftsman, who had prepared scaled sketch Ex.PG on the instructions
of Jagsir Singh PW2. The prosecution further examined Dr. Arvinder
Gill, Medical Officer as PW5, who had examined Pal Singh, Amarjit
Kaur, and Jagsir Singh. The relevant part of her testimony has been
reproduced below:-
"On 6.9.2000 at 11.30 P.M. I examined Pal Singh son of
Bachan Singh, 70 years male r/o village Charik and
found the following injuries on his person :-
1. An incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm on scalp on left
side, 6 cm from anterior hair line and 2 cm from mid-
line. Bone-deep, fresh bleeding was present and he
complained of vertigo and nausea.
2. Complain of pain in whole of body.
Injury no.1 was kept under observation while injury
No.2 was declared simple. Injuries were fresh. Weapon
used for injury No.1 was sharp and blunt for injury No.
2. I have brought the original MLR today, the carbon
copy of which is EX.PF and pictorial diagram is
Ex.PF/1.
On the same day, at 11.45 P.M. I examined Amarjit
Kaur w/o Jagsir Singh, 25 years female r/o village
Charik and found the following injuries on her person:-
1. An abraided contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm on back of
right elbow joint. Complaint of pain on movements
Fresh oozing was present.
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
2. An abrasion of 4 cm x 0.1 cm on back of left fore-arm
in middle. Fresh oozing was present.
3. Complain of pain in whole of chest. She alleged to be
checked in the chest.
4. Complain of pain and on front of both thighs.
Injury no.1 was kept under observation while rest of the
injuries were simple. Injuries were fresh and caused by
blunt weapon. I have brought the original MLR today
and the photo copy of the same is Ex.PH and the
pictorial diagram is Ex.PB/1.
On the same day at 11.50 P.M. I examined Jagsir Singh
son of Pal Singh, 27 years male, r/o village Charik and
found the following injuries on his person:-
1. A reddish contusion of 10 cm x 5 cm on right lumber
region.
2. Reddish contusion of 4 cm x 3 cm on back of right
fore-arm in middle.
3. Complain of pain in left leg.
All the injuries were simple, fresh and caused by blunt
weapon. I have brought the original MLR today and the
photo copy of the same is EX.PJ and the pictorial
diagram is EX.PJ/1. As per my opinion Ex.PK on the
basis of X-ray conducted by Dr. S.K Jain, I declared the
injury No.1 on the person of Pal Singh as grievous".
7. The prosecution further examined Amarjit Kaur wife of
PW6 Jagsir, injured and she also supported the case of the
prosecution.
8. After examining the various prosecution witnesses, the
statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
The accused pleaded innocence and stated that they had not caused
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
any injury to the complainant and the prosecution witnesses and had
been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant party had
sold their share and they were not in possession of the land in
question. They had wrongly claimed the ownership of land and got
the accused implicated in the present case.
9. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the
accused examined Malkiat Singh as DW1, who was member of
Panchayat of village Charik. He knew the complainant party as well
as the accused party. He stated that the accused had not caused any
injury to Pal Singh, Jagsir Singh and Amarjit Kaur. Pal Singh had no
possession of the land and the land was attached under Sections 145
and 146 Cr.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued
that the occurrence had taken place at 10.00 p.m. on 06.09.2000 and
the statement of the complainant was recorded at 01.00 p.m. on
07.09.2000 and the final report was sent to the Court on 21.09.2000.
Thus, there was delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR in the present
case. Still further, it has been alleged by the prosecution that three
persons had suffered injuries but the blood stained earth was not lifted
from the place of the occurrence. Learned counsel further contended
that even as per the case of the prosecution, the accused entered the
house of the complainant by breaking the gate and caused injuries.
However, no such broken gate was shown in the site plan. Still
further, even the medical evidence had not supported the case of the
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
prosecution. The prosecution examined Dr. Arvinder Gill as PW5,
who clearly stated that injury No. 1 on the person of Pal Singh could
not have been caused with a curved weapon and the prosecution was
liable to be disbelieved by this Court.
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently
argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was insignificant as the first
priority of the complainant side was to provide the medical aid to the
injured in the present case. Moreover, simply because the blood
stained earth was not lifted from the place of the occurrence cannot be
sufficient ground for throwing the case of the prosecution. Still
further, the prosecution had led sufficient evidence in the shape of the
testimonies of PW1 Pal Singh, PW2 Jagsir Singh and PW6 Amarjit
Kaur, who had categorically deposed with regard to the breaking of
the gate by the accused as well as with regard to suffering of the
injuries at the hand of the accused.
12. I have heard the rival submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
13. The first submission made by learned counsel for the
appellants is with regard to delay of 24 hours in lodging the statement
of the complainant in the present case. In the present case, the
occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m., on 06.09.2000 and Pal Singh
had got admitted himself at 11.30 p.m., i.e., after 1.30 hours of the
occurrence. However, the statement was recorded at 01.00 p.m., on
07.09.2000 and it can never be stated that the FIR was not registered
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
by the police with promptitude. Still further, the defence has led much
stress on the fact that three persons had suffered injuries and the blood
stained earth was not lifted from the spot. In fact, the trial Court has
rightly held that the complainant/injured could never be allowed to
suffer due to a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. Still
further, the trial Court has rightly observed that the three injured of
the case, i.e., PW1 Pal Singh, PW2 Jagsir Singh and PW6 Amarjit
Kaur had been examined by the prosecution and they had given vivid
description of causing injuries to them. They had assigned specific
roles to all the appellants in the present case and their testimonies
were duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. Arvinder Gill, PW5.
The injury No. 1 on the person of Pal Singh was caused by a Gandasa
and it was clearly possible with the use of a Gandasa. Even otherwise,
I have carefully perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and
the findings are based on correct appreciation of evidence and law.
The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or
irregularity and it is liable to be upheld by this Court.
14. Now adverting to the order on quantum of sentence, vide
the said order, the appellants were convicted under the various
provisions of Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence of five
years was imposed on all the appellants. However, during the
pendency of the present appeal, Jalaur Singh, appellant No. 1 has
already died. Still further, this Court cannot loss sight of the fact that
the appellants are facing the prosecution for the last more than 24
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
years as the FIR in the present case was registered on 07.09.2000.
Even at the time of occurrence, all the appellants were young
labourers and the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the
moment. Still further, both the sides were residents of village and
were rustic villagers. Still further, as per the custody certificates
Dilbag Singh, Mangal Singh and Lachaman Singh have undergone 01
month and 12 days of actual sentence and Bakhtaur Singh has
undergone 01 month and 16 days of actual sentence.
15. Still further, the sentence imposed on the appellants was
suspended by this Court on 10.03.2003 and in the last more than 21
years, the appellants have not misused the concession of bail in any
manner. Even, they were never involved in any other criminal activity.
16. Consequently, the sentence imposed on the appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the
amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- each.
17. With the above modifications, the appeal is partly
allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction is upheld, whereas
the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence
imposed on the present appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them. However, the amount of fine is enhanced to
Rs. 15,000/- each. The amount of fine shall be deposited with the trial
Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate within a period of 03 months, failing
which, the present appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148600
18. After the deposit of the amount of fine, the concerned
Court shall issue notice to all the three injured (to the legal heirs of
injured, in case any injured had expired) and the amount of fine shall
be disbursed to the all three injured in equal shares against receipt and
after proper identification as compensation.
19. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off,
accordingly.
20. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the
rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.
21. Records of the Court below be sent back.
14.11.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
