Kanwar Singh vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present appeal has been directed against the judgment/order dated 28.2.2000 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani convicted the appellant Kanwar Singh u/s 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the case stand reflected in para 1 of the judgment of the Learned trial Court, which are re-produced as under:-

On 12.3.1998 at about 8-8.15 A.M, Hoshiar Singh and his son Jitender were sitting in their house. The house of his brother Om Parkash is adjacent to the house of Kanwar Singh accused. Kanwar Singh and his sons Bhoop Singh and Pawan Kumar started hurling abuses to Hoshiar Singh at the kind (water-tank) situated near the house of his brother Om Parkash. Hoshiar Singh and Jitender went there and asked Kanwar Singh as to why they were hurling abuses. An altercation took place between them and they also exchanged slaps and fist blows. All of sudden Kanwar Singh took out a country made pistol from his right Dub and fired at Jitendr with an intention to kill him. The hand in which the pistol was being carried by Kanwar Singh was hit by Hoshiar Singh with his hand, as a result of which the shot fired from that pistol hit right leg of Hoshiar Singh below the knee and he fell on the ground. Jitender started lifting his father Hoshiar Singh upon which Pawan Kumar accused gave a knife blow on his left armpit. Hoshiar Singh and Jitender raised noise on hearing which Om Parkash and Smt. Babita wife of Jitender came there. Smt. Babita snatched the pistol from the hand of Kanwar Singh and entered in to the house of Om Parkash, brother of Hoshiar Singh. Kanwar Singh and his sons Bhoop Singh and Pawan Kumar also entered that house and gave slaps and fist blows to Smt. Babita and snatched the pistol from her. Thereafter several persons of the village collected there and on seeing them Kanwar Singh and his co-accused Pawan Kumar and Bhoop Singh ran away from that place. Some injuries were also inflicted by the complainant to the accused in self-defence. Some dispute was going on between Kanwar Singh and Hoshiar Singh pertaining to the boundary (Dol) of their fields and in the morning of 12.3.1999 an altercation had taken place between Jitender son of Hoshiar Singh and Pawan Kumar son of Kanwar Singh, wherein they had exchanged abuses. Om Parkash took Hoshiar Singh injured to the Civil Hospital, Siwani, where he was provided some treatment and was referred to the Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.

All the accused were charge-sheeted under sections 307/34, 323/34 and 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.8.1998. Kanwar Singh was also charge-sheeted u/s 25 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses viz. Hoshiar Singh, complainant as PW1; Jitender as PW2; Smt. Babita as PW3; Mahender Singh Kalia as PW4; Constable Veer Shakti Singh as PW5; Constable Ram Avtar as PW6; SI Partap Singh as PW8; Dr. Jagtar Singh PW9, Bhisham Chander as PW10; SI Ram Avtar as PW12; Suresh Kumar as PW13 and Dr. Suresh Chawla as PW14.

Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which he denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, the Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused Kanwar Singh for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment.

The appeal was admitted on 6.4.2000. The sentence of imprisonment was suspended on 25.4.2000 by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is 54 years old and has suffered the agony of trial for the last 14 years. He made a prayer that the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial court be reduced to the period already undergone.

The Ld. State counsel submits that out of 3 years, the appellant has already undergone 2 years, 11 month and 17 days of sentence. He has placed on record the custody certificate received from the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani.

From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 12.3.1998. The appellant has suffered a protracted trial for more than 14 years. He has already undergone the sentence of 2 years, 11 months and 17 days. The ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. In Mohinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases, 65, their Lordships observed as under:-

This appeal has been filed by the two appellants one of them is appellant 1. Mohinder Singh who was convicted for an offence u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment two other persons also were convicted for an offence u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and their appeal was heard by this Court on March 22, 1978. this Court acquitted the two appellants from the offence u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In this appeal appellant 1, Mohinder Singh was also convicted for an offence u/s 307 read with section 34 IPC and the Learned Counsel for the State frankly conceded that the case of Mohinder Singh is exactly the same as was the case of the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1978. In this view of the matter the appeal of Mohinder Singh has to be accepted. His conviction u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC therefore, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. As regards the conviction of the appellant Mohinder Singh for an offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act is concerned, the conviction is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone.

As regards Lakha Singh, this appellant was convicted for the offence u/s 307 IPC. The prosecution story was that when the party of the complainant opened door and came out armed with weapons like a gandasa, a lathi and other weapons, this appellant along with the others were standing outside the gate and appellant Lakha Singh was first given a blow by gandasa. After receiving the blow, according to the prosecution case he fired his pistol which resulted to grievous injury to the injured person Gian Singh. Under these circumstances his conviction u/s 307 could not be assailed but the peculiar circumstances of the case and the age of the appellant who at the time of the incident was only 20 years are the circumstances which deserve consideration while considering the question of sentence. It is also pertinent to know that this incident was of 1974 and no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail after more than 12 years. In view of these peculiar circumstances in our opinion the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice.

He is also convicted u/s 25 of the Arms Act and for that offence also the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, conviction is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone.

In view of the above, it is ordered that the sentence of appellant Kanwar Singh is reduced to the period already undergone. The Crl. Appeal No. 315-SB of 2000 is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence. Crl. Revision No. 579 of 2000 is the off-shoot of the incident dated 12.3.1998. As the sentence of the appellant Kanwar Singh is reduced to the period already undergone in Criminal appeal No. 315-SB of 2000, so the period already undergone by him in Criminal revision No. 579 of 2000 is also considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice. While maintaining conviction u/s 25 of the Arms Act, of the appellant, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The Criminal revision No. 579 of 2000 is also dismissed with the modification in the sentence of the period already undergone.