Ram Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by Ram Singh son of Wattan Chand, who was named as accused along with Wattan Chand, Ram Piari and Nirmala Devi, in case FIR No. 127 dated 27.10.1999, registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 308, 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide its judgment dated 4.11.2009, acquitted the appellant for the offence u/s 308 IPC but held him guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence u/s 325 read with Section 34 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence u/s 323 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The co-accused of the appellant were also convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide its judgment dated 27.5.2002, for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each, for the offence u/s 325 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for the offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the co-accused of appellant Ram Singh have preferred a separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 993-SB of 2002.

In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of a statement Ex.PA, made by Tulsi Ram, wherein he had stated that he was an employee of Bhakra Dam at Talwara. The occurrence had taken place on 5.10.1999 at about 2.30 P.M. when he was returning home after performing his duties and on reaching near the house of appellant Wattan Chand, he was found constructing a wall on the passage. Biaso Devi, wife of the complainant, was objecting to the construction of the wall as the case was pending and stay was granted in favour of the complainant party. The complainant also restrained the accused-appellant from constructing the wall. At that time, Wattan Chand, his son, present appellant, Ram Singh, Ram Piari and Nirmala Devi were present there. Co-accused Wattan Chand had raised a lalkara to catch hold of the complainant so that he could be taught a lesson. Co-accused Ram Piari threw a stone which hit on his head. Appellant Ram Singh gave him a saria blow on his head. Co-accused Wattan Chand, Ram Piari and Nirmala Devi threw stones towards complainant Tulsi Ram and caused him injuries. Tulsi Ram, complainant was medicolegally examined. A radiological examination of Tulsi Ram, complainant suggested fracture of sixth and seventh ribs on the right side with pneumothorax. Biaso Devi had also suffered five simple injuries.

Tulsi Ram, complainant, appeared as PW.1 and Biaso Devi as PW.8. Tulsi Ram, complainant, had suffered eight injuries. Injury No. 4 was declared as dangerous to life. The accused have denied the allegations, however, Ram Piari stated that she was going to see her daughter and son-in-law. When the complainant abused her, she had caused injuries to him. She further stated that Wattan Chand and Nirmala Devi were not present.

Surjit Singh was examined in defence as DW.1 who stated that Ram Piari had thrown brick bats in her defence.

The trial Court noticed that there was a delay of 23 days in the registration of the case. It relied upon the statement of PW.8 Biaso Devi that due to shock, Tulsi Ram, complainant, was not able to speak, therefore, the delay has occurred in recording the FIR. However, the trial Court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused for the offence u/s 308 IPC.

No appeal was filed by the State.

In the present case, appellant Ram Singh son of Wattan Chand, who was said to have given saria blow in the head of complainant Tulsi Ram, had caused simple injury.

In the present case, there is a dispute between the neighbourers on account of raising of a wall and on the spur of moment, the occurrence had ensued. The occurrence pertains to the year 1999 and a period of 11 years is going to elapse and the sentence awarded upon the appellants is one year.

Taking these factors into consideration, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant behind the bars after a period of 11 years.

Accordingly, the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, of the appellant is upheld. However, the appellant is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act"). The probation/surety bonds shall be furnished by him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The appellant, during the period of probation shall maintain peace and be of a good behaviour. Any breach of terms of the probation bonds, shall entitle the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, to call upon the appellant to serve the sentence. In the facts of the case, the appellant is fastened with Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured. In case, the amount is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the appellant.

Needless to say that the conviction will not be considered as a disqualification u/s 12 of the 1958 Act.