Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal directed by Pawan Kumar one of the accused-appellant against judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed by Sh. Vinod Jain, Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which the accused has been convicted for the commission of offence u/s 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Briefly, stated Satyawan son of Raj Singh and Pawan Kumar son of Randhir Singh appellant-accused have been sent to stand trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC in respect of FIR No. 201 dated 21.03.2003, Police Station City Rohtak.

The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Bharat Bhushan injured who has stated that he was appearing in 10+2 annual examination on 21.03.2002 at about 12.00 noon, he alongwith his friend Vinay was coming back towards his house after getting tuition from Khanna Public School, Rohtak and when they reached near Pooja Kitab Ghar in Indira Market, 3-4 boys were standing there. By chance, Bharat Bhushan touched shoulder of one of those boys who lost temper. Bharat Bhushan said that it was not intentional. Whereupon, one of those boys namely accused Pawan-appellant, who is also known as Poni as a student of 10th class in Vaish High School, Rohtak gave knife blow on head, back and on his right hand. He was caught hold by two or three companions who gave him fist and slap blows. Bharat Bhushan raised alarm Mar Diya-Mar Diya on which nearby shopkeepers alongwith Vinay rescued him from the accused persons. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh elder brother of father of injured was informed, injured was taken to PGIMS Rohtak for medical treatment. On the basis of which formal FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation challan was presented against the accused in the Court.

Copies of challan as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused free of costs and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused and accused-Pawan was also additionally charged for offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW1 Krishan Kumar, Record Keeper of PGIMS, Rohtak, PW-2 Dr. Ajay Gulati, PW-3 Dr. Subhash Chander, PW-4 official Draftsman C. Samit Kumar, PW-5 HC Dharam Singh, PW-6 Inspector Jai Singh, PW-7 HC Ram Kumar, PW-8 EHC Jagbir Singh, PW-9 ASI Ram Niwas, PW-10 SI Pitanjali Kumar, PW-11 HC Ranbir Singh, PW-12 HC Dilbag Singh, PW-13 complainant-injured Bharat Bhushan, PW-14 Eye witness Vinay, PW-15 Suresh Kumar, PW-16 Investigating Officer ASI Raj Singh and PW-17 Dr. Sanjeev Parshad and closed the prosecution evidence.

After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused to which they denied all the allegations levelled against them.

The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted the accused Satyawan of all the charges but convicted the accused Pawan Kumar u/s 324 IPC and sentenced him as narrated above.

Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment 31.03.2003, the accused-appellant Pawan Kumar has preferred the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court but he has submitted that appellant Pawan Kumar was only 18 years at the time of trial. He has submitted that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that he was student of 10th class. The occurrence relates to more than 11 years and since then appellant is facing agony of protracted trial. The prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.

The State counsel has opposed the prayer.

I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the record very carefully.

Although, during the course of arguments the conviction of appellant u/s 324 IPC has not been challenged however, since this is the first appeal, I have myself gone through the record of the case, statement of the injured coupled with Vinay Kumar PW14, corroborated the version of the prosecution. The medical evidence also support the case of the prosecution. There is no other infirmity in case of the prosecution, so, the conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of offence u/s 324 IPC stands affirmed.

Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence. As per the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he was 18 years on the date of recording the statement. In the FIR itself, it is mentioned that he was student of 10th class and the occurrence relates to more than 11 years. He must have been in custody for some days as the case was u/s 307 IPC.

So, considering all the circumstances mentioned above, the appellant is ordered to be released on probation on furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for keeping peace, for a period of one year to the satisfaction of concerned CJM. As the trial Court has awarded punishment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- out of which 90% is ordered to be paid to the injured. The ends of justice would be met in case the appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in cash including the amount of fine ordered by the trial Court. The said amount shall be paid within two months from today, which on recovery shall be paid to the injured after sending him due notice. In case of default of payment of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which is stated to have been deposited before the trial Court, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.