Partly allowed

Ramesh etc. v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2009CRR/1809/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld convictions for grievous hurt but granted probation under Section 4(1)(i) of the Probation of Offenders Act to all petitioners due to their first offender status, lengthy trial, and protracted suffering without mitigating the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Convictions upheld; sentences of imprisonment reduced to probation of good behaviour for one year for all petitioners upon execution of personal bonds.

Ramesh etc. Vs State of Hy. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

413

¶2

I c6 00 Z7 0m

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl Revnllo1809 of 2004

¶5

DATE OF DECISION74709

¶6

Ramesh 8 Anr 4ee Oetitioners
Versus
Stateof Haryana Respondent
1 Crl RevnIol 964 of 2004
0 AjitSingh S Ors SaePetitioners
0 Versus
I
C5 Stateof Haryana 03espondent
I
Z

¶7

Present Shri Vikram Punia Advocate for the petitionersin Crl Revrlo1809 of²⁰⁰⁴ Mr R Hooda Advocate for the petitionersin Crl RevtJo1964 of²⁰⁰⁴ Ms^Ritu Punj^Sr DAG Haryana

¶8

¶9

DAYA CHAUDHARYJ

¶10

This judgmentshall dispose of two Crl Revision petition bearing^Nos809 of 2004 and 1964of 2004 Crl Revllo1809 of 2004 has been filed by Ramesh and Mahabir whereas Ci Revrlol 964 of 2004 has been fiied by AjitSingh Jagdish Rishi Pal DilbaghSamunder and Babla

¶11

Brief facts of the prosecutionstory are unfolded^on the JOYTI RANI statement ofRawat Seema2012.10.09 10: 16PartapSingh who had stated to the policethat he^was 2016.03.28 16:21 True ScannedCopy Of TheOriginal I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document residentPHHC,Chandigarh of viliageBadhana and^was servingin Delhi Police They^{are Ove}

414

tm Q 0 0 I 9 I

I c6 C 7 Z Qm

Crl Revn No1809 of2004

¶16

¶17

brothersand on the dayof occurrence he^was onleave Yesterday^when his younger brother Hawa Singhwas goingto his house from the 6e1ds then Shamsher Slo Kedara met him^on the way and^a quarreltook place between them His brother Randhir Singh father Ishwar Singhand he himself^were grazing^{their cattle in} village^Khandainsome open Iand and at about 1200 noon accused DiibaghSingh Gulab Singh SatpaiPatwari Shamsher Samundar Mahabir Ramesh Jagdishand Wazir armed with kulhari gandasiand Iathi etc came in a tractor4rolleyfrom the side of viliage4ccused4jit gave^a Ialkarathat the complainantpartyshould be eliminated In the meanwhile all the accused attacked upon them with their respectiveweapons AccusedeShamsher gave^a Iathi blow on the head of complainantaccusedvlahabir caughthold of him and Shamsher and Rishi PaI gave Iathi biows^on his head and arm Due to that complainantfell down and the other remainingaccused gave injuriesto his father and brotherwith the helpof their respectiveweapons After hearing the alarm Risala and other persons of the neighbourhoodcame there who rescued them while the after seeingthese persons fled away^{from the} spot^{with their} respectiveweapons

¶18

lhe trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitionersunder Section 1481149IPC for^one year RI and fine of Rs3001 each and in default of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 20 days under Section 3231149IPC for six months Rl and fine of Rs 2001 each and in defauit of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 15 days under Section 3241149IPC for^one year Ri and One of Rs001 each andⁱⁿ default of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 20 days and under Section 3251149 IPC for two years Rl and fine of Rs 500 each and in default of paymentof fine to furtherundergoRl for^one month

¶19

Rawat Seema JOYTI RANI an 2012.10.09 10: 16Against^the judgment^{oftrial Coun} the petitionerspreferred 2016.03.28 16:21 True ScannedCopy Of TheOriginal I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document appealPHHC,Chandigarh^{beforeAdditionalSessions} Judge Sonepat^{whovideitsorder}

415

1 0 0 I C5 I Z

I c6 m 7 Z

J Cr Revr Nol 809 of 2004

¶25

dated72004 maintainedthe conviction but the order^on the quantumof sentence^was modified and the sentence awarded to the accusec under Section 148 IPC^was reduced from^one year RI to^SlX monthsRl sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC^was reduced from one year RI^to six moths Rl and the sentence awarded under Section 325 IPC^was reduced from two years RI to^one year Rl

¶26

Mr Vikram Punia Iearnedcounsel for petitionersRameshand Mahabir arguedthat Ramesh had falselybeen implicatedand no injurywas attributed^to him Mr Punia^funher argued^{that themotive} put^up by^the has nothingto do with Ramesh as an altercation took place between complainantand other accused who^were of^thesame family whereas was neitherthe member of that family^nor any altercationtook place between him and complainant Mr Punia also argued^{thatasperthecontentsofFlRRameshwasarmed withGandasi} and Mahabir caughthold of injuredwhereas the appellateCourt has attributed^a Iathi blow to Ramesh The version of appellateCoun^wasin sharp^contrast with the FIR Even from the statement of complainants Partap^PWm1 1^andIshwar Singh PV91 it is clear that Ramesh had falsely^been implicated

¶27

Mr SR Hooda Iearned counsel for petitionersAJit Singh Jagdish^Rishi Pal Dilbagh^Samunder Singh^andBabIahas argued^that the trial Court^as well^as the ApexCourt have not taken into consideration the very importantfact that there^was no recoveryof weapons and recovery of weapons^was a material case propetty^{andinabsencethereof} the petitionerscannot be connected with the cnme M Hooda further argued that in absence of recovety of any weapon and reponfrom FSL the case of the prosecutionremains unoroved^andthe judgmentof^{boththeCourts} belowRawat Seema2012.10.09 10: 16^are Iiableto be set aside Mr Hooda also 8rguedthat^no site plan JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:21 of the placeTrue ScannedCopy Of TheOriginalPHHC,Chandigarhof^occurrence was provedby the prosecutionand without proving I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document

416

1 0 0 I C

I oll 01 7 Z

C1 RevnIlo1809 of 2004

¶36

the site plan of the place of occurrence the petitionerscannot be convicted Mr Hooda next arguedthat there are many contradictionsand discrepanciesin the statements of witnesses and the ocular evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence Even the statements of injured witnesses are full of material contradictions As per statement of complainantPartapSingh^occurrence took place^on 281998whereas actualiy^ittook place^on 271995 As per version of FlR accused Shamsher^was armed with Iathi whereas^as per statement of complainant PattapSingh^hewas havinggandasi As^{per version} of^PWe1 PW2 and PW the complainantpartyreceived simpleinjuriesfrom sharpedged weapons^whereas Dr Arun Garg PW41 has stated that injuries^were received from blunt weapons and^as such there is^a contradictionbetween the statement of injuredand the statement givenby the Doctor Mr Hooda further arguedthat Risal Singh who Iifted the injuredfrom the placeof occurrence in his Jhota Baggi and got admitted him Itl Civil Hospital Sonepat^did not support^thecase of^the prosecutionand turned hostile It iS also the argumentof the Iearned counsel for the petitionersthat the injures^received by^the complainant^andothers were not^same and^were altogetherdifferent^as opinedby Dr Arun Garg 0W41

¶37

Ms Ritu Punj Iearned^senior DAG Haryanaarguedthatthe

¶38

case of^the prosecution^has fully^been proved^{onthebasisofstatement} of witnesses and medical evidence and the contradictionsand discrepancies pointedout by^{theIearned counselfor} the petitionersare minor and they

¶39

are bound to occur with the passage of time There are no material contradictions and those contradictions^are not fatal^to the case of the prosecution^Ms Punj^further argued^that the judgmentof^{tlIe triaiCourt} has been upheldby the appellateCourt and their sentence have already

¶40

JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:21 of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Rawat Seema been2012.10.09 10: 16reduced and there is^no groundto interfere with the judgmentsof True Scanned Copy Of The both theOriginal couits below PHHC,Chandigarh

417

1 C2 0 C0 I t5 I Z

Q I c6 Ol vn Z Q

CiRevn1809of2004

have heard Iearned counsel for the partiesand have also gonethrough^the judgments^{ofboththe Courts belowand other documents} avallable^on record

¶48

It is^an admitted^case of both the paniesthat the occurrence took placeand both the partiesreceived injuriesThe accused^were armed with weapons and caused injuriesto the complainantparty The FlR was on 281995 and the accusedoetitioners^were convicted by the trial Court^on 1 2003 and their appealwas dismissed^on 72004 The accused are facingprotractedtrial for the Iast 14 years Moreover they^are first offenders have alreadysuffered mentally^and physicallyand no purpose^{wouldbeserved} by sending^{thembehindthebarsafter} such a Iong time Moreover all the are^on bail Petitioners AjitSingh Jagdish^RishiPal Dilbagh^Samunder Singh^andBablahave alreadyundergone^{morethantwomonthsout} of^{their actualsentenceof} one year and other remainingaccusedoetitioners have alreadyundergone 14 daysof their actual sentence as theywere granted^baii by^thisCourt vide order dated 232004

¶49

After hearingIearnedcounsel for the pailies I do not find any illegaiityin the conviction of the petitionersHowever the factum of Iengthy trial of the petitionersbeingfirst offenders and sole bread winners of the family^are sufficient mitigatingcircumstances to extend the benefit of Probationof 0HendersAct to the petitioners

¶50

Under these circumstances while maintainingthe conviction of the petitionersit is directed that theyshall be released^on probationfor^a period^{ofone yearunderunder Section 4} l I of the Probation of OHenders Act^on their execution of personalbonds in the sum of Rs0001 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial MagistrateSonepat^The

¶51

Rawat Seemaare JOYTI RANI petitioners2012.10.09 10: 16 also directed to file^an undertakingwithin a periodof two 2016.03.28 16:21 monthsTrue ScannedCopy Of TheOriginal to keep peace and be of good behaviour duringthe period I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document of PHHC,Chandigarh

¶52

Il fl

¶53

418

¶54

Cr RevnVol 809 of 2004

¶55

¶56

and to appear and receive sentence^as and when called upon to

¶57

do^so if necessary

¶58

77 2009
POOJa
V7
0
0
I
C5 e
I
Z r
c41
I
08
r
W

¶59

IDAYA JUDGE

¶60

¶61

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

Ramesh etc. v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh etc. v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Vs State of Haryana

Kanti Lal Shah Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ritu Bala and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amar Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Metalways Pvt. Ltd. Chd Vs Cit Patiala

Dharmvir @ Sabhi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.