Allowed

Tara Chand v. State of Pb.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2012CRA-S/123/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the High Court rejected arguments regarding delay in FIR registration and conflicting medical reports. Upholding the trial court's findings, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the sentence, and ordered the accused to surrender.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the conviction and sentence order dated 25.01.2000 were upheld; bail bonds were ordered forfeited in lieu of surrender.

Tara Chand Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.123-SB of 2000

¶5

Date of Decision : 26.07.2012

¶6

Tara Chand and another

.......Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

¶13

Present: Mr. Anmol Pratap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶14

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶16

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, challenging the judgment and order dated 25.01.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court'), convicting the accused (herein appellants) for committing offence under Sections 326, 325, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentencing them as under:-

¶17

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶18

-2-

¶19

Name of accused	the Under Section	Sentence
Tara Chand	326 IPC	R.I. for three years and fine of`2,000/-
	325 IPC	R.I. for one and a half years and fine of `1,000/-
Om Parkash	326/34	R.I. for three years and fine of`2,000/-
	325/34 IPC	R.I. for one and a half years and fine of `1,000/-

¶20

However, both the sentences were ordered to run

¶21

concurrently.

¶22

The brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:-

¶23

“2. Prosecution story, in brief, as per Manoj Kumar complainant is that he is resident of village Bodi Wala Peetha and is doing agriculture. He has one brother namely Ashwani Kumar and Ashwani Kumar is elder to him. Both the brother are residing in the fields. On on 6.6.96 in the evening he was going towards his Dhani his Maruti Car. When he was present at some distance from the bridge of water-course on the Katcha path, then sighted Satpal @ Sattu and Sharbati Devi on the way. He

¶24

started talking with Satpal and Sharbati Devi. After

¶25

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶26

-3-

¶27

10/15 minutes Satpal and Sharbati Devi went towards the village and Manoj Kumar on his car had gone towards his Dhani. When he was present on the turning of his Dhani, then sighted Tara Chand armed with Takua and Om Parkash armed with dang, while going on scooter. Tara Chand and Om Parkash are residing in their farm house situated near bridge of water-course. Scooter was stopped in front of the car. After alighting from the car he enquired about the reason from the accused. In the meantime Pardip Kumar s/o Lal Chand and Parhlad Kumar s/o Madan Lal came on tractor from the side of village Katehra. It was 7.30 p.m. Then Tara Chand raised Lalkara by saying that he had to leave the land of Shopat Ram due to dispute with Sharbati Devi and he (complainant) is helping Sharbati Devi, so he is to be taught a lesson. Complainant had some altercation with the accused. On hearing raula Pardip Kumar and Parhlad Kumar, while coming on the tractor stopped there on hearing raula. Then Tara Chand gave a takua blow which hit the left eye of complainant. Om Parkash gave dang blow, which hit on the left side of the forehead of complainant. Tara Chand gave another takua blow from its reverse side, which hit over the left eye of

¶28

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶29

-4-

¶30

complainant. Om Parkash gave dang blow which hit below the left eye of complainant. On receipt of injuries complainant fell on the ground. Tara Chand gave more blows from the reverse side of the Takua and Om Parkash also gave dang blows by saying that legs and arms of the complainant are to be broken. Pardip Kumar and Parhlad Kumar raised alarm and tried to rescue complainant after alighting from the tractor. Then both the accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons on the scooter. While leaving the place of occurrence, accused threatened the complainant to eliminate him in future in case he (complainant) helped

¶31

Sharbati Devi. After that Ashwani Kumar shifted the complainant to PHC Khuian Khera where he was medically examined. From PHC Khui Khera, injured wasreferred to civil hospital, Fazilka. Again at civil hospital, Fazilka injured was medical examined. As per complainant he was helping Sharbati Devi, so accused caused injuries. On the statement of Manoj Kumar dated 7.6.96 case was registered....”

¶32

Charges under Sections 307, 326, 325, 34 IPC were framed against the accused-appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶33

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶34

-5-

¶35

In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, viz., Dr. P.K. Goria as PW1; Manoj Kumar as PW2; Parhlad Kumar as PW3; Dr. M.L. Madan as PW4; Dr. Vajinder Singh as PW5; Dr. Sohan Singh as PW6; Dr. V.K. Mujral as PW7; Hans Raj as PW8, Shopat Ram as PW9; and Sucha Singh, I.O. as PW10.

¶36

In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused-appellants denied the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, they examined H.C. Arjan Singh as DW1; Fateh Chand as DW2; Sharbati Devi as DW3; Surinder Pal as DW4; and Tilak Raj as DW5.

¶37

The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is an inordinate delay of more than 20 hours in reporting the matter to the Police. The alleged occurrence took place on 06.06.1996 at 7.30 p.m. but the statement of the complainant was recorded on 07.06.1996 at 3.10 p.m. The learned counsel further contends that as per the medico-legal examination at three different hospitals and each of them revealed different number of injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence lacks corroboration. The learned counsel further contends that Parhlad Kumar, the eye-witness was an interested witness as he

¶39

-6-

¶40

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶41

was the Pagwatt brother of Ashok Kumar, the brother of the complainant. The learned counsel further contends that it is unbelievable that the alleged eye-witnesses, did not make any effort to save Manoj Kumar, in spite of their being present at the spot. The learned counsel further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the statement of Smt. Sharbati Devi, that she had no dispute with Tara Chand regarding turn of water. The learned counsel lastly argued that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out in the present case.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the prosecution was successful in proving the case against the appellants beyond any doubt. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶44

It is the case of the prosecution that after causing injuries to the complainant, Manoj Kumar, the accused fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the brother of the complainant was called on the spot and the injured was shifted to PHC Khui Khera, which is at a distance of about 2/3 kms. from the place of occurrence. The injured was medico-legally examined at about 9.15 p.m. by Dr.M.L. Madan and 17 injuries were noticed on his person. Intimation was sent to the Police. In the meantime, the injured was referred to the Civil Hospital, Fazilka. The I.O. Sucha Singh went to PHC Khui Khera and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to the

¶45

-7-

¶46

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶47

Civil Hospital, Fazilka. Upon reaching Civil Hospital, the I.O. obtained opinion of the doctor and thereafter, the statement of the injured was recorded. The first anxiety of the witnesses was to get prompt medical aid for the injured in view of the nature and number of injuries and then to report the matter to the Police. After sending the ruqa to the police by the doctor, the attendants were satisfied that the police has been informed. Therefore, the delay in lodging the complainant stands fully explained.

¶48

If there is some variation in the number of injuries, that is not of much consequence as sometimes the doctor examining the patient misses to take notice of all the injuries or the patient could not bring all the injuries to the notice of the doctor. So, this contention is repelled.

¶49

Sharbati Devi appeared as DW3 and stated that she had no dispute with Shaupat Ram and the complainant never met her on the day of occurrence. However, the accused did not plead specifically that the land of Shaupat Ram was not on Theka with him and they had no dispute with Sharbati Devi. She was not examined by the prosecution as won over by the accused. Therefore, the testimony of Sharbati Devi is not worthy of reliance. In order to seek revenge, both the accused caused injuries to the complainant.

¶50

It is the case of the appellants that Parhlad Kumar, eyewitness, is the Pagwatt brother of Ashwani Kumar, the brother of the complainant. However, the said Parhlad Kumar has fully supported

¶51

-8-

¶52

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶53

the case of the prosecution and his presence on the spot is established. He along with Pardip raised alarm and the accused fled away from the spot. The accused were armed and the said eye-witnesses might not have tried to rescue the complainant out of fear. Therefore, the ground that the eye-witnesses did not come to save the complainant is not enough to disbelief the entire prosecution story.

¶54

Next it is argued that the punishment is harsh and lenient view may be taken. This Court has scanned the nature and number of injuries suffered by the injured at the hands of the accused-appellants. Keeping in view the nature and number of injuries, there is no scope to reduce the sentence.

¶55

No other point has been argued.

¶56

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution was successful in proving its case without any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.01.2000, passed by the learned trial Court, are upheld. The accused-appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand forfeited. They shall surrender before the learned trial Court to suffer the remaining part of sentence.

¶57

CRR No.1382 of 2000

¶58

Now, coming to the revision, the learned trial Court has awarded just and adequate punishment and there is no scope either for enhancement or for reduction. The main appeal has already been

¶59

CRA No.123-SB of 2000

¶60

-9-

¶61

dismissed as above. So, this revision is also dismissed being devoid

¶62

of any merit.

¶63

( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 26.07.2012 JUDGE

¶64

Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No

Tara Chand v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand v. State of Pb.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab

Seema Vs State of Haryana

Tarlochan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Khurana Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Padam Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana