Ujjagar Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Virender Singh, J.—I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 12S-SB of 1989 filed by Ujjagar Singh son of Bahal Singh, Boor Singh and Puran Singh sons of Ujjagar Singh and Ashok Kumar son of Hari Chand and Criminal Revision No.329 of 1989 filed by Jarnail Singh son of Jagga Singh and Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh by this common judgment.

The above-said four appellants along with Darshan Ram son of Hari Chand were booked in a case bearing FIR No. 180 dated 21.8.1987 at Police Station Guruharsahai under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Darshan Ram stands acquitted. There is no appeal against his acquittal. Puran Singh son of Ujjagar Singh has been convicted and sentenced u/s 307 IPC to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo R.I. for the three months, u/s 326/34 IPC for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default to further undergo R.I. for three months and under Sections 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC for six months and three months respectively. Ujjagar Singh has also been convicted and sentenced u/s 307/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for three months, u/s 326 IPC for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo R. I. for three months and u/s 324 IPC and 323/34 IPC for six months and three months R.I. for respectively. Similarly, Boor Singh was convicted and sentenced u/s 307/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default, R.I. for three months, u/s 326 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to undergo further R.I. for three months and under Sections 324 IPC and 323/34 IPC for six months and three months R.I. respectively and Ashok Kumar to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, further R.I. for three months u/s 307/341 PC and three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default R.I. for three months u/s 326/34 IPC and six months and three months R.I. under Sections 324 and 323 IPC respectively. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

For the purpose of clarification, it may be mentioned here that one is Puran Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, who is one of the appellants and another is Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh, who is one of the complainants.

The occurrence is dated 20th August, 1987 and briefly the case of the prosecution is that Jarnail Singh, injured had gone to his maternal parents at Village Malakzada to see Puran Singh, his cousin. On 21.8.1987 at about 6 A.M. he and Puran Singh son of Arjan were coming on foot from village Malakzada towards Bus Stand Reshamshah Bodla and when they had hardly crossed the village Tirpalka, the present appellants along with Darshan Ram (since acquitted) waylaid them. Darshan Ram was armed with a Dang whereas the present appellants were armed with Gandasas. It is then alleged that Boor Singh-appellant raised lalkara that Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh be taught a lesson for getting a false case registered and thereafter all of them started assaulting Puran Singh badly.

In this case, Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh received as many as 12 injuries whereas Jarnail Singh received 2 injuries. The two injuries attributed to Puran Singh son of Ujjagar Singh-appellant allegedly caused on the person of Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh (injured) led to the framing of charge under Sections 307 IPC and 326 IPC substantially qua him. There is no need to discuss the other injuries as they are simple in nature caused by sharp-edged weapons attracting Section 324 IPC. Similarly, on the person of Jarnail Singh, there are two injuries, one of them a lacerated would and the other a simple injury caused by sharp-edged weappn attracting Section 324 IPC.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, at the very outset has very fairly stated that he does not want to press his case so far as setting aside the conviction is concerned. Instead, he prays that keeping in view the fact that the complainant and the accused are closely related, a lenient view may be taken so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Gill further contended that the appellants were convicted way back in 1989 and have undergone the rigour or protracted trial for about 13 years and that during the trial or even after conviction, the complainant and the appellants have never fought with each other on any issue. Consequently, there is no bad blood left in them by now. He then argued that the appellants have also undergone a few months as under-trial and some of the appellants remained in custody after conviction as well for a couple of days.

Mr. M.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the complainants has also admitted the factual position in respect of confinement of the appellants as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sidhu also admitted the fact of inter se relations between both the parties. In support of his arguments, Mr. Gill has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Taraknath v. State of West Bengal, 1998( 1) ACJ 193 (S.C.): 1998 SCC 1, Page 587. In this case, their Lordships of the Apex Court while taking into consideration the close relationship between the parties, the time elapsed in hearing the appeal and the fact that the appellants were not involved in any offence during the trial, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants but at the same time imposed a heavy fine.

I agree with the prayer made by Mr. Gill on behalf of the appellants and am of the view that all the appellants deserve leniency so far quantum of sentences is concerned. Admittedly, the occurrence relates to the year 1987. Ujjagar Singh-appellant was of the age of 75 years at that time. Mr. Gill says that he is still alive. Boor Singh was of the age of 50 years at the time of occurrence whereas Puran Singh and Ashok Kuniar were of the age of about 38 years. There is no gainsaying the fact that the appellants have undergone some periods in jail as is admitted by both the parties and that no untoward incident has ever taken place between the parties after 1987 as they are related to each other. In my view, sentencing the appellants to undergo the remaining part of their sentences after a lapse of 13 years would be unjustified. Rather, in case they are sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of their sentences, it may boil their blood once again resulting into an incident hereinafter.

At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Puran Singh has received as many as 12 injuries and Jarnail Singh two injuries. All these injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Some of the injuries on the person of Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh are on the vital parts of the body. In my view; the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them, but with a substantial increase in the quantum of fine keeping in view the injuries received by the two injured in this case. I order accordingly. However, the fine imposed upon Puran Singh i.e. Rs.2000/- is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-whereas upon the other appellants, it is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- each. In case the amount of fine already imposed upon the appellants has been deposited in the Trial Court, the same would be deducted from the enhanced amount of fine. It is further directed that the fine, if paid, injured Puran Singh son of Arjan Singh would be paid Rs.50,000/- as compensation whereas Jarnail Singh son of Jagga Singh would be paid Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The remaining amount of fine would go to the State. In case of default of payment of fine as stated above, the appellants would not be entitled to any concession of reduction in sentence and in that eventuality, would undergo the sentences of imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court. The amdunt of fine shall be deposited before the Trial Court and the same would be disbursed to Puran Singh and Jarnail Singh immediately thereafter.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal stands dismissed with the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine as indicated above.