Kewal Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

Virender Singh, J.—Kewal Singh and his father Mukhtiar Singh stand convicted vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge. Faridkot dated 20.10.1990. Their conviction and sentence is as under:-

Kewal Singh

U/s304 Part IIIPC

RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.

Mukhtiar Singh

U/s 30 of Arms Act

Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for these months.

Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants contends that Mukhtiar Singh appellant has deposited the fine in the trial court itself.

In wood cut the case of the prosecution is that on 12.1.1989, Gurtej Kaur(since deceased) and her mother had gone to distribute GUR in the village as on 19.11.1988 as a son had born to her brother Chhinder Singh''s wife in Malaysia. Kewal Singh appellant cut jokes with Gurtej Kaur in the presence of her mother and the matter was reported to Chhinder Singh when she came back to the house. It is then the case of the prosecution that Chhinder Singh, his maternal uncle Sukhdev Singh, Gurtej Kaur alongwith her mother had gone to the house of Kewal Singh to make a protest. It was 10 PM at that time. The appellant Kewal Singh was standing in the court yard. Chhinder Singh asked Kewal Singh appellant that he had not done right thing by cutting joke with his sister. Kewal Singh replied that earlier his mother had lodged a protest and now he had come for the same purpose. He then said that he would teach them a lesson. Kewal Singh appellant then brought a rifle of his father and fired at Chhinder Singh but incidently the fire shot hit Gurtej Kaur on her left thigh, on receipt of which Gurtej Kaur fell down. The prosecution case further goes that appellant Kewal Singh fired two other shots but incidently it did not hit anybody. He thereafter ran away from the place of occurrence. Gurtej Kaur was taken to Dhudike village by Chhinder Singh alongwith his mother but she died in the hospital.

Ruqa was sent by the concerned doctor to the concerned police station. Thereafter SI Gurmej Singh PW5 went to Primary Health Centre Dhudike and recorded the statement of Chhinder Singh Ex.PD and thereafter sent the same for registration of the formal FIR. On the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/2 was recorded by ASI Sadhu Singh (not examined). Other formalities were also done on the spot including preparation of inquest report. Three empty cartridges Ex.Pl to P3 were also taken into possession by the prosecution agency.

On 21.1.1989, Kewal Singh appellant was arrested. Rifle Ex.P5, two live cartridges Ex.P6 and P7 were also recovered from him.

After completion of the entire investigation, both the appellants were challenged. They were consequently charged by the trial Court.

After appreciating the entire evidence, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

I have heard Mr. Bipal Ghai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance I have also gone through the records of the case.

Mr. Ghai at the very outset contends that he does not intend to assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead prays for the reduction of the sentence of Kewal Singh appellant. In support of his contentions he has submitted that the present occurrence relates to the year 1989. Appellant Kewal Singh was of 28 years at that time. He then contends that he otherwise stands convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC on the ground that Gurtej Kaur (since deceased) had incidently suffered injury on her non-vital part i.e. thigh whereas appellant Kewal Singh had no intention to cause that injury to her. The learned counsel then contended that according to the prosecution case itself the complainant party had gone to the house of the appellants to raise a protest at night. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, Kewal Singh appellant deserves reduction in the quantum of sentences, the Id. counsel so contends.

So far as Mukhtiar Singh appellant is concerned, it has been submitted that he has been sentenced for fine only which stands paid by him in the trial court itself.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued and contended that appellant Kewal Singh does not deserve any leniency for reduction of sentence.

Although Mr. Ghai has not assailed the conviction of the appellants on merits, yet I have gone through the entire evidence minutely once again and am of the view that Kewal Singh has been rightly convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC. His conviction, thus, is affirmed. Conviction of Mukhtiar Singh u/s 30 of the Arms Act is also confirmed.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghai. The occurrence relates to year 1989. The appellant Kewal Singh by now has undergone the rigor of protracted trial of 14 years. As per the prosecution case itself, there was no strong motive in the bosom of the accused party viz to attack the complainant party. It all happened when the complainant party went to the house of the appellants in the night hours on 12.1.1989. Thus, in my view Kewal Singh deserves a lenient view.

So far as Mukhtiar Singh appellant is concerned, as stated above he has already deposited the fine.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the considerated view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of Kewal Singh appellant is reduced to RI for four years from seven years already awarded by the trial court u/s 304 Part II IPC. It is ordered accordingly. However, I enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.5000/-. He is directed to deposit the fine within three months from today. In case of default, he shall further undergo Rl for three months.

With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above regarding Kewal Singh appellant only, the present appeal stands dismissed.

Let intimation be sent to the concerned Court for taking necessary steps to take Kewal Singh appellant in custody to serve out his remaining part of substantive sentence.