Surja Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anana, J. (Oral)

By this judgment I dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 299SB of 1987 titled Surja Singh and another v. The State of Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 970 of 1989 titled Ram Kalan v. The State of Haryana and others as the appeal and revision have arisen from the judgment and order dated 13.4.1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who convicted the appellants under Sections 323/308/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 323/34 I.P.C. and 21/2 years under Section 308/34 I.P.C. The trial court ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant party consisting of two injured persons namely Ram Kalan and Lala Ram as well as both the accused belong to the same village and also have the same caste. Their houses are situated near to each other. There was a party faction in the village of the accused and the complainant party. In the year 1983, Panchayat elections took place in the village and the families of the complainant and that of the accused supported different candidates though both of them were elected as member of the Panchayat of the same village. However, the relations between the two factions became strained. Their relations also remained strained in the year 1984 when the same dispute took place between the same parties. So much so, the parties were even challaned under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and a criminal case was also registered. Anyway, a good sense prevailed subsequently and the matter was patched up but the differences between the parties continued.

On 13.1.1986 at about 10.00 p.m., Ram Kalan went to the Dera of Satnam Singh to fetch Lala Ram, who was working as servant of Satnam Singh. At about 10.30 p.m. both Ram Kalan and Lala Ram returned from the Dera of Satnam Singh and when they reached near the house of the accused, they found Surja Ram armed with a lathi and Ram Kishan empty handed emerging out of heap of Parali lying there. Surja Ram gave a lathi blow on the head of Lala Ram and Ram Kishan threw brick bats hitting Ram Kalan on his abdomen. An alarm was raised which attracted to the place of occurrence Tulsi Ram, Phool Singh and Amar Singh and they also witnessed the occurrence. After causing the injuries both the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Injured Lala Ram was brought to the house and on the way he became unconscious. During the night no member of the complainant party went to the police station or to the hospital on account of the fear of the accused and also on account of nonavailability of conveyance. On the next morning, Lala Ram in unconscious condition was taken to Primary Health Centre, Pehowa along with the other injured namely Ram Kalan and they reached there at about 8.30 a.m. Dr. Rajinder Kumar incharge of PHC, Pehowa medicolegally examined Lala Ram and found injuries on his person. He also medicolegally examined the other injured Ram Kalan. The doctor then sent a ruqa Ex.PB/2 to the police station informing the police about the admission of Ram Kalan.

ASI Siri Ram of Police Station Pehowa rushed to PHC, Pehowa and he made an application Ex. PB/3 before the doctor in order to ascertain his opinion whether Lala Ram was fit to make a statement. However, the doctor opined vide Ex. PB/4 that Lala Ram was not in a position to make a statement. The ASI then recorded the statement of other injured namely Ram Kalan Ex. PH and sent it to the police station with his endorsement Ex. PH/1 for the registration of the case and formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan Ex. DL of the place of occurrence was also prepared. Injured Lala Ram was shifted to L.N.J.P. Hospital. The ASI went there and submitted application Ex.PD before the doctor in order to ascertain whether Lala Ram was fit to make a statement or not. But the doctor declared him unfit to make a statement.

The investigation of this case was further conducted by SI Sohan Singh, who on 16.1.1986 arrested the accused. During the course of interrogation Surja made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one lathi in the heap of Parali and he could get the same recovered. Thereafter in pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered a lathi which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PH/1. The condition of Lala Ram did not improve even in L.N.J.P. Hospital and he was shifted to PGI, Chandigarh on 17.1.1986. Even in the PGI Lala Ram was not fit to make a statement. Ultimately Dr. Bindira of PGI performed an operation upon Lala Ram on 17.1.1986 and found fracture of linear tempro frontal extending towards midline. Lala Ram was finally discharged from the PGI on 24.1.1986 and his statement was recorded by SI Sohan Singh on 28.1.1986.

With above allegations the investigation was completed and the challan was submitted in the Court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 21.5.1986 committed the accused to the Court of Session in order to face the trial under Sections 308/323/34 I.P.C.

Vide orders dated 21.7.1986, Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra framed charges against the appellants under Sections 323/34 and 308/34 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. N.C. Mureja, who xrayed Lala Ram and found fracture of left fronto parietal region of the skull and proved this fracture through opinion Ex. PA. Ex.PA/1 is the skiagram of the injury. Dr. Rajinder Kumar Goel appeared as PW 2, who initially medicolegally examined Lala Ram and found two injuries on his person which are described as under :

A lacerated wound of 2.5 cm. x .5 cm. into bone deep on the left side of scalp 7 cm. above the left eye brow, 2.5 cm. from the midline. It had blood clots in and around the wound. Xray was advised.

An abrasion of 3 cm. x 1 cm. just near the injury No. 1 on its medial side. It had blood clots.

It has also been certified by the doctor that the patient had three vomitings since the time of injury and it contained blood and there was bleeding through nose. PW 3 Dr. Subhash Chander Grover declared through opinion Ex. PD/1 that Lala Ram injured was unfit to make a statement and so this witness had declared the injured Lala Ram unfit to make a statement even on 15.1.1986. Dr. Ashish Pathak, Senior Resident, Deptt. of Neuro Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh appeard as PW 4 and he declared Lala Ram as unfit to make a statement even on 18.1.1986. PW 5 Dr. Anajan Kumar Dass simply sent ruqa Ex.PF to policepost PGI, Chandigarh about the admission of Lala Ram and vide opinion Ex. PG/1 stated that on 17.1.1986 at about 6.00 p.m. this injured was not fit to make a statement. PW 6 Dr. Mahbub Bhasa simply deposed that on 18.1.1986 at about 11.15 a.m. Lala Ram was not traceable in Emergency OPD. PW 13 Dr. Bindira, who operated upon injured Lala Ram, found a fracture of linear tempro frontal region extending towards midline. PW 7 Ram Kalan and PW 8 Lala Ram are the injured witness and they have corroborated the allegations of the prosecution. So far as the identification of the accused is concerned, it stands proved from the statement of Lala Ram whose statement has also been corroborated by PW 9 Tulsi. This witness was attracted at the spot. PW 10 Mukesh Kumar is only a Draftsman, who proved the site plan Ex. PK. PW 11 and PW 12 are the Investigating Officers of this case.

On the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them. Accused denied those circumstances and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In defence, they examined Bhira as DW 1.

The learned trial court for the reasons given in the judgment convicted and sentenced both the appellants under the various offences referred to above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal. The complaintamt has also come in revision for the enhancement of the sentence of the appellants namely Surja Singh and Ram Kishan.

I have heard Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate for Haryana State, Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant in support of the revision and with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

So far as the conviction aspect is concerned, much has not been said on behalf of the appellants for the reason that it is a case where the occurrence stands proved from the statements of the stamped witnesses. The accused are none else but covillagers of the injured. There was a strong motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence as the relations between them and the complainant party were strained on account of panchayat election. There was a long dispute between the parties on account of party faction and panchayat election. The occurrence had taken place on Lohri day at about 10.00 p.m. Moreover, the identity of the accused also stands proved from the statements of the injured witnesses, which have been corroborated by Tulsi PW 9, who is also a covillager. The occurrence lasted for few minutes. The weapons used were lathi and brick bats. Lathi is a weapon which can only be wielded upon a person from a distance of about 3/4 feet and in these circumstances the identity of the assailants is very easy and especially of the covillagers. The oral evidence is further corroborated by medical evidence.

So far as the delay aspect of the case is concerned, it is not very material. The injured could not go to the hospital due to the fear of the accused. Moreover, no conveyance was available during the night. The explanation which has been furnished by the prosecution appears to be genuine and probable. I have stated above that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has not said much so far as the conviction aspect is concerned, but he has only prayed that this court may show leniency to the appellants in the matter of sentence as with the passage of time a better sense has been prevailed between the parties and they have entered into a compromise. So much so, even the complainant and the injured witnesses are also present in court and they have also stated that they have no objection if the appellants may be treated with mercy in the matter of sentence. Mr. Hooda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that out of the awarded sentence of 21/2 years under Section 308/34 I.P.C., the appellants have already suffered about one month of sentence. The counsel for the appellants has also invited my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, Ram Lal and another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, JT 1999(1) SC 147 and submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had taken a very lenient view when the parties to the litigation had compromised. He submitted that the present dispute took place in the year 1986 and after a lapse of 13 years the appellants must have suffered a lot about their criminal acts. Even the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant is not seriously challenging the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants but there is a contest from the side of the State through Mr. Ahlawat, who states that the State of Haryana has suffered monetarily in prosecuting the appellants and if the High Court is inclined to show leniency in the matter of sentence, the State should be compensated monetarily. There is a merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State. The offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is not compoundable, but in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court certainly the aspect of compromise can be looked into for the purpose of sentence. I would like to refer para No. 5 of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which lays down as follows :

"5. However, considering the fact that parties have come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that first appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he had already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith."

As the injured are not interested in the sentence of the appellants, while maintaining the conviction of both the appellants under Sections 323/34 and 308/34 I.P.C., their substantive sentences are reduced to already undergone. However, each one of the appellants shall pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ to the State of Haryana within two month from today which shall be deposited in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. If the fine is not deposited, each one of the appellants shall undergone R.I. for six months. No portion of the fine shall go to the injured.

With above modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. So far as the revision is concerned, the learned counsel for the complainant is not interested to prosecute the revision which is hereby dismissed.