Fakiria Ram and another vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by Fakiria Ram and Naib Singh against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2003 passed by Sh. Surinder Gupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which the accused-appellants have been convicted under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-

For offence u/s 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:- they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each.

For offence u/s 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:- they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly stated, the appellants alongwith Binder Singh, Kala Ram, Harmesho, Kindro, Swaran Ram and Gurmail Kaur were sent to stand trial for the offences under Sections 308, 341, 323, 325, 506 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC in respect of FIR No. 323 dated 24.09.2000.

The facts as gathered from the record are that on 24.09.2000 at about 7.30 a.m., the complainant and his father Lal Bahadur went to their bara and the father of the complainant told Sarban Ram that his sons are committing excesses by planting the saplings in the area of the bara of the complainant. At this Fakiria, his son Binder armed with soties, kala and Naibu armed with iron rods came there. Sarban Ram raised a lalkara to catch the complainant and to teach him a lesson for lodging the protest. In the meanwhile, Fakiria gave soti blow on the head of the complainant. Kala Ram gave blow with his iron rod on the head of Raj Rani. Binder gave blow with the soti in his hand on the head of Lal Bahadur. Naibu hit the head of Santosh Rani with his iron rod. Thereafter, the accused encircled the injured and started causing injuries to them. Kicks were also given in the abdomen of Lal Bahadur while he was lying on the ground. The people gathered at the spot, the accused ran away alongwith their respective weapons after giving threat to teach a lesson to the complainant in future.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Charge u/s 308 IPC was framed against the accused Binder whereas the remaining accused were charged sheeted under Sections 308 read with Section 149 IPC. Charge was also framed against all the accused under Sections 148, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined PW-1 Dr. Baljit Kaur, M.O., PW-2 Rajinder Kumar, PW-3 Raj Rani, PW-4 Dr. Sukhbir Singh Chauhan, M.O., PW-5 Dr. Navdeep Kaur, PW-6 Lal Bahadur, PW-7 Harinder Singh Patwari, PW-8 HC Sohan Singh, PW-9 Harwinder Singh SI, PW-10 Dr. R.K. Girdhar M.O. and closed the prosecution evidence.

After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication. The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence but they have chosen not to lead any evidence in defence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused Fakiria and Naib guilty under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment and order dated 28.07.2003 passed by Sh. Surinder Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, both the accused have preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Otherwise also, the four injured persons namely Rajinder Kumar, Raj Rani, Santosh and Lal Bahadur have received as many as 15 injuries in all out of which one has been declared grievous. The ocular evidence is fully corroborated with the medical evidence. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that accused are not previous convict. The occurrence relates to year 2000 i.e. more than 13 years back. It is further submitted that they have already undergone incarceration for a period of 17 days. The parties are neighbourer. In case, the appellants be sent in custody it would create bad blood between the neighbourer. So, the prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer.

I have considered the submission made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.

From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that Rajinder Kumar received 4 injuries, Raj Rani received 5 injuries and Santosh Rani received three injuries and all these injuries were declared simple in nature. Lal Bahadur received three injuries out of which one injury on the top of head was caused by blunt weapon and was declared grievous in nature. The occurrence relates to more than 13 years ago. Naib has stated his age as 20 years at the time of judgment. As per conviction slip, they have already undergone incarceration for a period of 17 days. They are not previous convict nor involved in any other case. They are on bail for the last more than 10 years. Otherwise the parties are also neighbourer.

So considering all the circumstances, the sentences of the appellants stand reduced to the period already undergone. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, the appellants are ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each. On realization of the said amount, Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to Lal Bahadur u/s 357 Cr.P.C. The remaining injured Rajinder Kumar, Raj Rani and Santosh shall share Rs. 50,000/- in equal shares. The said amount of compensation by each of the appellant shall be paid within a period of two months from today failing which their appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.