Dharam Singh alias Dharambir vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of Additional Session Judge, Rohtak dated 27.2.1998 whereby he dismissed appeal against conviction and sentence recorded against Daram Singh alias Dharambir (petitioner herein) by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh on 21/22.4.1995 in case FIR No. 461 dated 3.10.1985 of P.S. Bahadurgarh under Sections 324/325/326/148/149 Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 2.10.85, Mahender Singh PW was coming from village Harhevri and when he reached near the pond of his village Kanonda at about 8 p.m., Om Parkash, Rup Ram, Dharam Singh and Nanhe sons of Har Dutt and their father Har Dutt were found sitting on the way. Om Parkash and Rup Ram were armed with jellies. Dharam Singh and Nanhe were armed with lathis. Har Dutt was armed with tachiya. When Mahender Singh reached near Om Parkash and other accused, Om Parkash and others accused got up. Om Pakash dealt a jelly blow on the back of Mahender Singh. Har Dutt dealt a tachiya blow on his left leg. Har Dutt dealt another blow on his right hand. Rup Ram, Nanhe and Dharam Singh dealt lathi blows on Mahender Singh. As a result of this onslaught, Mahender Singh suffered a number of injuries. Mahender Singh raised alarm. His alarm attracted his father Ram Chander PW at the spot who tried to rescue Mahender Singh. Om Parkash and others accused did not spare even Ram Chander. They also dealt blows on him. Ram Chander raised alarm. Dhira son of Udey Singh and Sardara son of Ranjit came to the spot. Om Parkash and others accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Mahender Singh and Ram Chander were brought to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh. They were referred to Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak. Mahender Singh made statement Ex. PA on the basis of which aforesaid case was registered at PS Bahadurgarh.

After investigation, Om Parkash and others accused were challaned under Sections 323/324/325/326/148/149 Indian Penal Code. Accused were charged under Section 148 IPC. They were charged under Section 323/324/325/326/149 Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate vide order dated 21.4.1995 found the charge proved against the accused. He accordingly convicted them thereunder and vide order 22.4.1995 sentenced them each to undergo RI as follows :

3 months under Section 148 IPC.

6 months under Section 323 IPC.

1 year under Section 324 IPC.

2 years under section 325 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ in default to undergo further RI for 7 days.

3 years under Section 326 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/, in default to undergo further RI for one month. Sentences shall run concurrently.

Dharam Singh alias Dharambir having felt that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate went in appeal to the Court to Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.2.1998. Having felt that he has been given a raw deal by the two courts below, Dharam Singh alias Dharambir has come up in revision to this Court praying that his revision be accepted and conviction and sentence recorded against him by the two courts below be set aside and he be acquitted.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, his brothers and father were brought in the net by Mahender Singh and Ram Chander PWs falsely and so that the net spread around them was wide enough to cover all of them, they assigned one or the other injury to each of them. Conviction and sentence was recorded by the two courts below on the uncorroborated testimony of Ram Chander and Mahender Singh PWs. Ram Chander is father while Mahender Singh is son. He submitted that according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 8 p.m. on 2.10.1985. At 8 p.m. in the on the month of October, there is dark and the visibility is poor. No wonder, injuries were caused to them by some one else and they implicated them falsely because of the property dispute between Ram Chander and Har Dutt. Ram Chander and Har Dutt and brothers married at village Harhevri. Their fatherinlaw had no son and there was dispute over his property between Ram Chander and Har Dutt. Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that it was dark on 2.10.1985 at 8 p.m. PW3 also supported the version of Ram Chander and Mahender Singh PWs. Ram Chander injured was admitted in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak on 3.10.1985. He was a case of multiple injuries and fracture of the 2nd Metacarpal of the left hand. Another injured Mahender Singh was also admitted in the Department of Orthopaedics on 3.10.1985. As per the Xray report, Mahender Singh sustained fracture of the lower end of Ulna, fracture of middle phalanx right index finger, chip fracture, lower end of radius, fracture lower end of tibia and fibula left and fracture lower end of fibula right side. Xray report prepared by Dr. S.K. Bajaj in respect of Mahender Singh is Ex. PW9/A. Xray reported prepared by Dr. S.K. Bajaj in respect of Ram Chander is Ex. PW9/B. Mahender Singh PW2 stated that Om Parkash dealt a jelly blow on his back and Har Dutt dealt a Farsa blow on his left leg. Remaining accused dealt lathi blows to him, as a result, his leg and shoulders got injured. When his father Ram Chander came to his rescue, he was also given injuries by the accused. Ram Chander stated that Har Dutt dealt a Farsa blow on his left shoulder. Dharam Singh gave a lathi blow on his left hand. Har Dutt again dealt Farsa blow on his shoulder. Dharam Singh dealt another lathi blow on the back side of his head. Motive for the causing of the injuries by the accused persons to Ram Chander and Mahender Singh also stands established. Mahender Singh was having dispute with Har Dutt etc. with regard to the land of village Harhevri belonging to his maternal grand father who had transferred that land to him as he was issueless. Accused persons could not reconcile to the transfer of land to Mahender Singh by their maternal grandfather.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that PW4 and PW5 were eyewitnesses in the case. They did not support the prosecution case. In the absence of support to the prosecution case by them, it will be difficult for the Court to place implicit reliance on the statements of Ram Chander and Mahender Singh PWs who are father and son interested in landing the accused to jail. I do not find any weight in this submission as the ocular account given by Mahender Singh and Ram Chander PWs finds support from the medical account. Time of receipt of injuries by them synchronises with the time of occurrence given by the doctor.

It was next submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence allegedly took place on 2.10.1985 at about 8 p.m.. FIR was registered on 3.10.1985 at 11.30 a.m. There is thus 15 hours delay in the lodging of the First Information Report. In my opinion, delay has been satisfactorily explained. Mahender Singh reached Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh at 10.40 p.m. on 2.10.1985. Thereafter he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. ASI Ramvir Singh of PS Bahadurgarh reached Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak where he recorded that statement of Mahender Singh injured. First anxiety of the kith and kin of the injured is to take the injured to the hospital. Injures, 1, 2, 5 and 8 on the person of Mahender Singh were found to be grievous caused by blunt weapon. Injures 6 and 9 on the person of Mahender Singh were also found to be grievous caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No. 1 on the person of Ram Chander was found grievous caused by blunt weapon. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the appraisal of evidence by the learned Magistrate. Similarly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reappraisal of evidence made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate justifiably found the charge proved against the accused and convicted him.

Case was registered against the accused on 3.10.1985 Challan was put in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh in the year 1986. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh decided the case on 21.4.1995. That means they faced the trial before the learned Magistrate for about 9 years. Unfortunately, they were convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate on 21.4.1995. Appeal was filed in the Court of Session which was decided on 27.2.1998. That means, the fate of the petitioner hanged in balance for about 3 years before the Court of Session and eventually, the petitioner was found to have been convicted and sentenced justifiably. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that right to speedy trial is the basic right of the accrued flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the court is not able to assure speedy trial to the accused, the court should at least show him some leniency in the matter of sentence. He submitted that after all the petitioner has been facing mental pain and agony for over 13 years. What will be the recompense to him now if he is sentenced to undergo the same term of imprisonment to which he would have been sentenced if the trial had not lasted for more than a year or so. He submitted that the mental pain and agony to which the protracted trial has subjected the accused to, should induce the court to take lenient view. Dharam Singh petitioner, his father and brothers gave a number of injuries to Mahender Singh and Ram Chander. Ram Chander and Har Dutt are brothers while Mahender Singh is son of Ram Chander. Dharam Singh and others are sons of Har Dutt. They belong to the same family. Dharam Singh and others should not have taken the law in their own hands and taken to settle the civil dispute by show of force. At the same time, so that the chances of fostering amity and goodwill among them are not foreclosed altogether for ever, I think some leniency should be shown in the matter of sentence towards Dharam Singh. So, the sentence passed upon him is slashed to the extent indicated below :

1 month RI under Section 148 IPC

3 months RI under Section 323 IPC

4 months RI under Section 324 IPC

6 months RI under Section 325 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ in default to undergo further RI for 2 months.

9 months RI under section 326 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 400/, in default to undergo further RI for three months.

Sentences shall run concurrently.

Amount of fine, if recovered, will be shared by Mahender Singh and Ram Chander equally.

Subject to this reduction in sentence, this Revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.