Jaggi Singh @ Jagjit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 23/24.4.2003 passed by Sh. Jaspal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which accused-appellant Jaggi Singh @ Jagjit Singh has been convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The case of the prosecution as enumerated from the record is that statement of Jagsir Singh S/o. Kartar Singh was recorded in which he has stated that on 3.10.2000 at about 5.15 p.m. his brother Sira Singh was returning to his house on bicycle located in the colony, from the village. Jaggi Singh accused, who was armed with gandasa was coming from the opposite direction, whereas Charno @ Charanjit Kaur wife of Sira Singh was coming on foot, having a bundle of fodder on her head. At that time, the buffalos belonging to him were drinking water in the pond. On seeing Sira Singh, Jaggi Singh accused exhorted that today he will not be allowed to go scot free as he was causing harassment to Pammi and levelled false allegations upon him and today he will be eliminated. Jaggi Singh-appellant gave two gandasa blows with an intention to kill him, one from its right side and another from reverse side, which landed on the head of Sira. Sira Singh feel down on the ground. Complainant, as well as, Charno w/o. Sira Singh raised hue and cry and shouted for help. Accused Jaggi Singh fled away from the spot. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be that accused Jaggi Singh caused injuries to Sira at the instance of Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi w/o. Makhan Singh, brother of the complainant, as well as, victim Sira Singh. Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi developed illicit relations with Jaggi Singh and he used to generally visit in her house to quench his lust for sex, which was not acceptable being insult to the complainant and his brother. Injured Sira Singh was taken to the hospital, where he was medico legally examined. After investigation of the case, challan was presented against the accused.

Copies of documents were supplied to the accused under the rules free of cost and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge u/s 307 IPC was framed against the accused Jaggi Singh and charge u/s 120B was framed against Jaggi Singh and co-accused Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused examined PW-1 Dr. Ramesh Katodia, PW-2 Dr. S.P. Bansal, PW-3 Dr. Naresh Bansal, PW-4 Dr. Tajinderpal Singh Rekhi, PW-5 Dr. Dupinder Kumar, PW-6 Dr. R.K. Kaushal, PW-7 Dr. Kavita Goyal, PW-8 Jagsir Singh complainant, PW-9 Charno w/o. Sira Singh injured, PW-10 Rup Lal Halqa Patwari, PW-11 HC Anup Singh, PW-12 HC Sukhminder Singh, PW-13 Sira Singh injured, PW-14 Dr. Puneet Gupta, PW-15 Dr. Amit Sadana, PW-16 HC Dalel Singh, PW-17 ASI Pritam Singh and closed the evidence of the prosecution.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and complained of false implication. Accused Jaggi Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated. Makhan Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi had strained relations with Sira Singh and Jagsir Singh on account of dispute of ornaments. Sira Singh and Jagsir Singh had also sold the ancestral house and Makhan Singh was not given any share out of the sale proceeds and Makhan Singh was demanding his share. The appellant was helping Makhan Singh in their family dispute and on that account he has been falsely implicated. Co-accused Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi has stated that she has been falsely implicated and reiterated the same stand.

The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence and they examined DW-1 Gulzar Singh and DW-2 Gurjant Singh @ Janta and closed the defence evidence.

Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted Paramjit Kaur @ Pammi, whereas Jaggi Singh @ Jagjit Singh was convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23/24.4.2003 passed by Sh. Jaspal singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal.

I have heard counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.

Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but has submitted that as per the conviction slip the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years, 11 months and 18 days including remissions of 1 year and 16 days out of the substantive sentence of 7 years. It is further submitted that occurrence relates to about 13 years back and he is on bail since 2003 and must have been settled in his life. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence and has placed reliance upon the authorities reported as Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, , Binder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Shubh Karan and Others Vs. State of Haryana,

Although counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial court, but since this is first appeal, I have myself gone through the record. The medical evidence dully corroborates the version given by the injured as well as, the complainant. It is a case of single accused and single injured and there is no chance of misidentification. So, in these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands affirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, as per the conviction slip, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years 11 month sand 18 days including remissions of 1 year and 16 days out of the substantive sentence of 7 years awarded by the trial Court. The case relates to the year 2000 and as per the conviction slip the appellant is on bail since 12.9.2003. As per the conviction slip he is not a previous convict nor he is involved in any other case. So, in view of authorities in Vijay Kumar''s case (Supra), Binder Singh''s case (Supra), Ujjagar Singh''s case (Supra) and Subh Karan''s case (Supra) and taking into account the totality of circumstances, the sentence of the appellant stands reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine stands affirmed. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries proved on the file, the appellant is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 357 Cr.P.C., to the injured. The said amount be deposited within two months from today, failing which the appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.