Onkar Singh alias Kaku vs State of Punjab

Virender Singh, J.—Onkar Singh alias Kaku son of Sardar Singh has been convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 14th July, 1989 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year.

It is pertinent to mention here that Jaimal Singh son of Atma Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Jit Singh were also booked along with the present appellant, but they have been acquitted by the trial Court. No appeal has been filed by the State against their acquittal.

Jagtar Singh is the injured in this case who allegedly received injuries at the hands of the appellant. The appellant was having a country made pistol.

In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 5.1.1988 at about 7.30 P.M. Jaswant Kaur, mother of Jagtar Singh (injured), Param Rani his wife, were present in their house and were sitting in the verandah. Jagtar Singh had gone to see the television programme in the house of Hara singh. Two boys had allegedly climbed up the stairs by scaling over the wall; they came inside and called Jagtar Singh. Jaswant Kaur replied that he was not there and those boys asked Jaswant Kaur to call Jagtar Singh. Consequently, Param Rani wife of Jagtar Singh went to call Jagtar Singh and she brought him. It is then the case of the prosecution that Jaimal Singh and Balwinder Singh allegedly caught hold of Jagtar Singh and pulled him saying that they wanted to talk with him and then they exhorted the appellant to shoot at Jagtar Singh. The appellant then fired a shot from his pistol causing injuries to him. He was removed to the hospital and, thereafter, Jaswant Kaur made a statement Ex.P10 with the concerned police station, on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex.P10/B was record. The appellant was produced by Nirmal Singh before ASI Khushi Ram and was arrested on 7.4.1988. During interrogation, he allegedly gave disclosure statement regarding concealment of the country made pistol and two cartridges which were duly recovered by the prosecution agency.

The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Raj Kumar (PW1), Nirmal (PW2), Jaswant Singh (PW3), Jagtar Singh (PW4), Param Rani (PW5), ASI Khushi Ram (PW6), Shri G.S. Bhatti, Chief Judicial Magistrate Kapurthala (PW7), Gursharan Singh SI (PW8), Hari Kishan Bhalla Draftsman (PW9) and ASI Lakhbir Singh (PW10) and closed the prosecution evidence after producing the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P6 and report of Serologist Ex.P7. The appellant denied all the allegations and claimed innocence. He also produced one defence witness and certain documents.

The appellant was charged u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as referred to above. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of convictions and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. H.S. Bhullar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.P.S. Raja, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. The entire evidence and the other relevant documents have also been perused by me.

Mr. Bhullar at the very outset has contended that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and instead, prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence. Advancing his argument on the point of quantum of sentence, Mr. Bhullar has submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was of the age of 17 years, which is otherwise clear from the impugned judgment. Even according to the Doctor, there was very minor injury, although by firearm, on the person of Jagtar Singh. He further contended that the appellant was arrested in this case on 7-4-1988 and was granted bail during trial in July 1989 and after conviction also, the appellant remained in custody for a few days. Thus, his total period of custody comes to 1-1/2 years. The appellant, according to him, has already suffered the agony of the protracted trial of about 15 years as the occurrence is of January 1988. He further contended that in between also, no untoward incident had occurred and thus, he deserves a lenient view so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned.

On the other hand, Mr. Raja, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, has contended that the appellant does not deserve any leniency so far as reduction in the quantum of sentence is concerned, may be that the case of the appellant is not pressed on merits.

Although, Mr. Bhullar has not pressed his appeal on merits, yet I have carefully scanned the whole evidence on merits and am of the considered view that the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not liable to be set aside on merits. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is hereby maintained.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I feel that there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was of the age of 17 years at the time of the commission of the offence. He has already suffered the rigor of the protracted trial of about 15 years. He already remained in custody for about 18 months as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant and this fact was not disputed by the other side. The injury on the person of Jagtar Singh is also not of serious nature. It is 1.7 cm rounded lacerated punctured wound with inverted and ragged margins on the left side of axillary line.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is increased from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant would further undergo RI for one year. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three months from today before the trial Court and in case of deposit, the same shall be disbursed to injured Jagtar Singh without any delay.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above.