Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh @ Sonu & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
1
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
Date of Decision: September 04, 2024
Harpreet Singh @ Sonu and others ..... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
2. CRA-D-1173-DB-2015
Mohan Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s).
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the complainant.
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CRA-S-4556-SB-2014 and CRA-D-
1173-DB-2015, which were taken up together at request and with consent of
learned counsel for parties as both the appeals arise out of the same incident
which occurred on 04.12.2010.
2. Present is admittedly a matter of version and cross version. FIR No.
60 dated 05.12.2010 was registered under Sections 307, 324, 323 IPC read with
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
Section 34 IPC on the statement of Harpreet Singh @ Sabhi son of Joga Singh
against Harpreet Singh @ Sonu son of Surinder Singh, Mohan Singh son of
Gurmail Singh, Surinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh. All the said accused
were convicted vide judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, SBS Nagar. CRA-S-4556-SB-2014 was filed by convicts challenging the
said judgment and order of sentence dated 12.09.2014. Cross version giving rise
to complaint was registered on the statement of Mohan Singh son of Gurmail
Singh. However, accused therein were acquitted leading to filing of CRA-D-
1173-DB-2015.
3. As per prosecution version in FIR No. 60, registered on the
statement of Harpreet Singh @ Sabhi son of Joga Singh, fodder had been sold by
him to Mohan Singh at the rate of Rs.1500/- per kanal about two months prior to
04.12.2010, however, only a sum of Rs.1300/- per kanal had been paid by
Mohan Singh with refusal to pay the remaining amount. On 04.12.2010, Joga
Singh father of complainant Harpreet Singh @ Sabhi, Mohan Singh (both
convicted), Sandeep Singh and Darbara Singh had together gone to watch
Kabaddi match at village Sarhal Mundi where they consumed liquor and
returned to village Khothran Kalan at 6.30 p.m. They continued drinking at the
house of Joga Singh. However, at about 9.00 p.m., Joga Singh and Mohan Singh
started abusing each other and came out onto the street. Mohan Singh called for
his brothers and nephews upon which Hapreet Singh @ Sonu armed with
gandasa, Baldeep Singh @ Deepa son of Surinder Singh armed with khanda,
Surinder Singh armed with khanda and datar joined them. Harpreet Singh @
Sonu and Surinder Singh are attributed blows with their respective weapons
upon Joga Singh attracting the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Other
accused Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda (PW11) was also injured in the incident.
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
Injuries were also received by Harpreet Singh son of Joga Singh, Sandeep Singh
son of Balwinder Singh. Injuries received by Harpreet Singh and Sandeep Singh
were duly proved by PW1 Dr. Subodh Kumar Kataria. PW2 Dr. Pankaj Kant
Gupta testified regarding injuries received by Balwinder Singh and Joga Singh.
Injury suffered by Joga Singh recorded in Exs. PF and PF/1 is as under:-
"1. Lacerated incised wound over scalp starting from lateral end of
eyebrow.
2. Incised wound present below the left eyelid".
4. As per CT scan report, there is Sub Arachnoid Hemorrhage with
extra dural hemorrhage and hemorrhagic contusions with fracture of left
maxillary sinus. Injury No. 1 was declared dangerous to life. Joga Singh was
operated upon at Dayanand College and Hospital, Ludhiana and remained
admitted there for 15-20 days. Evidence of Neuro Surgeon is also on record.
5. Learned trial Court on considering the evidence on record, facts and
circumstances concluded that there is no merit in the argument in the defence
raised by accused party that there was never any intention of causing injuries in
question on the ground that both sides had gone together to watch kabaddi
match, admittedly consumed liquor together and continued festivities at the
house of Joga Singh, therefore, incident which occurred would not constitute
offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, accused were convicted
for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced as under:-
Name of convict Under Sentence Fine In default
Section Rigorous Rigorous
Imprisonment Imprisonment
Surinder Singh 307 IPC 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
for the injury to
Joga Singh
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
Harpreet Singh 307 read with 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
alias Sonu 34 IPC
Mohan Singh 307 IPC read 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
with 34 IPC
Harpreet Singh 307 IPC 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
alias Sonu for
the injury to
Kulwinder Singh
Surinder Singh 307 read with 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
34 IPC
Mohan Singh 307 read with 7 years Rs.5000/- 6 months
34 IPC
Harpreet Singh 326 IPC 3 years Rs.3000/- 3 months
alias Sonu to
complainant
Harpreet Singh
Surinder Singh 326 read with 3 years Rs.3000/- 3 months
34 IPC
Mohan Singh 326 read with 3 years Rs.3000/- 3 months
34 IPC
Surinder Singh 324 IPC 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
Harpreet Singh 324 read with 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
alias Sonu 34 IPC
Mohan Singh 324 read with 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
34 IPC
Mohan Singh 324 IPC 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
Harpreet Singh 324 read with 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
alias Sonu 34 IPC
Surinder Singh 324 read with 1 year Rs.1000/- 1 month
34 IPC
Surinder Singh 323 read with 6 months
34 IPC
Harpreet Singh 323 read with 6 months
alias Sonu 34 IPC
Mohan Singh 323 read with 6 months
34 IPC
6. Cross version had been set forth by accused party in the shape of
statement recorded by Mohan Singh. Said complaint was, however, dismissed
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2014. CRA-S-4556-SB-
2014 has been filed by appellants convicted as above. CRA-D-1173-DB-2015
has been filed by Mohan Singh challenging judgment of acquittal dated
12.09.2014.
7. Learned counsel for parties at the very outset submit that the matter
stands compromised between parties way back in October, 2018 before learned
Mediator-cum-Secretary District Legal Services Authority, SBS Nagar. Parties
are stated to be residents of same village and have been living in peace and
harmony ever since. No untoward incident has taken place after the incident in
question in 2010. It is submitted that application filed in CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
for quashing FIR No. 60 dated 05.10.2010 had been dismissed by this Court on
29.01.2019. In this view of the matter, it is prayed that as convicts have
undergone substantial part of sentence, the sentence imposed upon them may be
directed to be the one as undergone.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant in FIR No. 60 categorically
states that there is no objection to this course of action, infact the complainant
therein would pray for the same in order to maintain peace and harmony.
Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Rajendra
Harakchand Bhandari and others versus State of Maharashtra and another
2011 (13) SCC 311.
9. Learned counsel for appellant in CRA-D-1173-DB-2015 submits
that he has instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of settlement which was
arrived on 13.10.2018.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
10. Learned counsel for State does not raise any objection to sentence
imposed upon convicts being reduced to that undergone by them in the given
facts.
11. Heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through file with
their able assistance.
12. Perusal of evidence on record indeed proves that prosecution was
able to prove commission of the offences as mentioned above. It is, however, a
matter of record that incident took place between parties who admittedly shared
camaraderie amongst themselves. Incident in question took place 24 years ago.
Admittedly, parties reconciled with each other way back in the year 2018. All of
them are agriculturists with the convicts having no other criminal case against
them. Appellant - Harpreet Singh @ Sonu has undergone actual imprisonment
of 03 years, 07 months and 02 days and in case, period of remission is included
he has undergone 03 years, 08 months and 02 days. Similarly, Surinder Singh
has undergone actual imprisonment of 03 years, 10 months and 22 days and
Mohan Singh has undergone actual imprisonment of 02 years, 03 months and 08
days and in case, period of remission is included he has undergone 02 years, 06
months and 23 days.
13. In somewhat similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra) reduced the sentence
awarded upon convicts thereunder for the offences punishable under Sections
307, 332, 353 read with 34 IPC to the period already undergone i.e. about 2½
years. It was observed as under:-
" We must immediately state that the offence under Section
307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the
offence in the present case is out of question. However, the
circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade
us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident
occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then.
The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no
previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation
amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim
have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the
parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants
have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half
years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that
ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to
the appellants is reduced to 10 the period already undergone while
maintaining the amount of fine."
14. Gainful reference in this regard can also be made to decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramgopal and another versus State of Madhya
Pradesh 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322.
15. In the given facts and circumstances, it is considered appropriate to
reduce the sentence imposed upon appellants in CRA-S-4556-SB-2014 to the
period already undergone by them as it is apparent from the record that :-
(i) Occurrence in question took place way back in the year 2010. It is
an admitted position that no untoward incident has transpired
between parties after said incident and even after settlement which
took place before Mediator-cum-Secretary District Legal Services
Authority, SBS Nagar in 2018. Statements of parties were duly
recorded on 13.10.2018 before Mediator-cum-Secretary District
Legal Services Authority, SBS Nagar. Photocopies thereof are
available on record in CRA-D-1173-DB-2015.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115818-DB
CRA-S-4556-SB-2014
(ii) All the parties are residents of the same village and are peacefully
co-existing since then. The convicts are agriculturists having no
other criminal case against them.
(iii) Abovesaid facts are duly verified by the State which has no
objection to re-direction of sentence imposed upon convicts.
16. Keeping in view the above, conviction of appellants in CRA-S-
4556-SB-2014 is maintained. However, imprisonment imposed upon them is
reduced to the one already undergone by them and fine imposed upon the
appellants is maintained.
17. CRA-S-4556-SB-2014 is disposed of accordingly.
18. CRA-D-1173-DB-2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
September 04, 2024 JUDGE
Rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
