Krishan vs State of Haryana

K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)

This is an appeal directed by the accusedappellant Krishan s/o Harbhaj, against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by Sh. Dewan Chand, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

Briefly stated, the law was set on motion on recording of statement of Manphool Singhcomplainant who has stated that on 16.12.1994 he alongwith Bharti Lal and Kuldeep Singh s/o Chet Ram were present near Hanuman Mandir, when Krishan armed with his licensed gun and Ghamandi accused came there. On seeing the complainant and others, Ghamandi accused exhorted saying that teach a lesson to Bharti Lal etc. for lodging a case against him. On hearing this, Krishan accused fired a shot with intent to kill, which hit the right leg of Manphool Singh. The second shot hit the right cheek of Manphool Singh. On receipt of fireinjuries, he fell down. The injured as well as Bharti Lal and Kuldeep Singh made a noise saying "mar diya, mar diya", which attracted Asha and other people of the village. On seeingthem, Krishan and Ghamandi fled away with their weapon. There after Bharti Lal removed Manphool Singh to Government Hospital, Fatehabad, where his statement Exhibit PA was recorded, which formed the basis of FIR.

The motive for the occurrence, according to the prosecution was that some time back Krishan and Ghamandi accused, caused injuries to Bharti Lal (nephew of Manphool Singh) and a criminal case was lodged against them. The accused were asking Bharti Lal for compromise, but Bharti Lal refused to compromise and therefore, they caused injuries to Manphool Singh with gun with intent to kill them.

During the investigation, fire arm was taken into possession. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the accused Krishan. However, Ghamandi accused was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused Krishan, whereas charge under Section 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused Ghamandi.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW1 Manphool Singh, PW2 Bharti Lal, PW3 SI Surat Singh, PW4 Krishan Kumar, PW5 HC Mukesh Chand No. 308, PW6 Dr. Mohinder Kumar Gupta, CHC, Bhattu Kalan, PW7 Constable Darshan Singh No. 961 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to partyfaction.

Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence on the file, acquitted the accused Ghamandi, whereas accessed Krishan has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as narrated above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction but has submitted that the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 IPC only and has undergone protracted trial for more than 14 years, so, he is entitled for the grant of probation.

Learned State counsel has opposed the said prayer.

Since, this is the first appeal, although counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction, but from the testimony of the eyewitness and doctor, ingredients of offence under Section 324 IPC are made out and as such conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC stands affirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence relates to 14 years back. It would not be in consonance of justice to send him to custody after a period of 14 years of protracted trial. The ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is ordered to be released on probation, on his furnishing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, he shall pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/ to the complainant under Section 357 Cr.P.C. That amount shall be paid within two months from today, failing which the appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

JUDGMENT accordingly.