Partly allowed

Sultan Singh and Others v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2013CRA-S/681/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging conviction under Sections 148 and 323 read with 149 IPC, the Court found the trial court correct in holding appellants guilty. However, recognizing they were first offenders and injuries were simple, the Court suspended sentences and granted probation.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences suspended; appellants released on probation for two years subject to furnishing bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with a surety, payment of Rs. 2,000 costs per appellant, and award of com

Sultan Singh and Others Vs State of Hy. — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003 {1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003 Date of Decision: 12th December, 2013

¶4

Sultan Singh & Others

...Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶11

Mr.G.S.Sandhu, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

Appellants Sultan Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Pritam Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Bhura, Om Parkash and Sher Singh have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2003 and the order of sentence dated 04.04.2003 whereby they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, and ordered to undergo the following sentences:-

¶15

Offences	Sentence(R.I.)	Fine	In default (R.I.)
148, IPC	Two years	` 500/- each	15 days
323/149 IPC	One year	` 500/- each	15 days

¶16

Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the depositions of Mohinder Singh (PW11),

¶18

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

{2}

¶20

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶21

eye-witness of the occurrence and that of Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14 injured), he does not propose to challenge the conviction of the appellants. However, he submits that the appellants are the first offenders; Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) went to the dhaba (road side restaurant) of the appellants at 1.00 a.m on the intervening night of 28^th /29^th December, 1997, there all of sudden a quarrel ensued; appellants Sultan Singh and Pritam Singh remained Sarpanch of their village for several years and that only superficial simple injuries on the non-vital parts of the injured-Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) were found by Dr.K.K.Sharma (PW3). It was also submitted that Chuhar Singh (PW10), yet another injured who received an incised wound, did not support the prosecution case and from his evidence, the prosecution could not gain anything in its favour.

¶22

Though the learned counsel for the appellants has proposed not to argue the case on merits but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been re-scanned with the assistance of learned counsel representing the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that ASI Maya Ram (PW15) and Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) along with Chuhar Singh (PW10) and Mohinder Singh (PW11) had gone to Uttar Pradesh in connection with the investigation of FIR No.1009, dated 26.12.1997, registered at Police Station, Shahbad (Kurukshetra) for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 IPC in a Maruti car. While returning from there, the car, in which the police party was travelling,

¶24

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

{3}

¶26

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶27

had gone out of order. Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) and Chuhar Singh (PW10) went to the dhaba of appellant Pritam Singh to fetch water. Both of them took tea and while they were coming out of the dhaba then Pritam Singh (appellant) exhorted that Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) had once tried to implicate them in a false case and he should not be allowed to go. Appellants Sultan Singh, Bhura, Om Parkash, Rajesh Kumar and three-four more persons armed with lathis and swords attacked the Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) and his companion Chuhar Singh (PW10). An injury was caused by means of sharp-edged weapon on the person of Chuhar Singh (PW14) and Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) received simple injuries by means of blunt weapons. ASI Maya Ram (PW15), Mohinder Singh (PW11) and Madan Lal, driver of the car tried to get Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) and Chuhar Singh (PW10) released from the clutches of the appellants but in vain. The police party was confined in a room at the house of Pritam Singh (appellant). The information was passed at the Police Station, Shahbad, regarding the incident. Consequently yet another police party arrived at the spot and rescued Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14), Chuhar Singh (PW10) etc from the clutches of the appellants. Statement of Chuhar Singh (PW10) was recorded by SI Mam Chand (PW16) and the same was sent to the police station for registration of the case. The appellants were arrested and the weapons of the offence were recovered. After completion of the formalities of the investigation, the charge sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.

¶28

Since the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, was

¶29

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

{4}

¶31

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶32

exclusively triable by the court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said court.

¶33

Finding a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342 and 353 read with Section 149, IPC, were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶34

In order to substantiate its allegation, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

¶35

	PW-1	Dr.Kanchan Bala
	PW-2	Dr.Suresh Sharma
	PW-3	Dr.K.K.Sharma
	PW-4	A.S.I.Jagdish Chand
	PW-5	Constable Dhanpat
	PW-6	Constable Niranjan Singh
	PW-7	Constable Umed Singh
	PW-8	Dr.Jagmal Singh
	PW-9	Sudeep Kumar, Draftsman
	PW-10	Chuhar Singh
	PW-11	Mohinder Singh
	PW-12	H.C.Jagdish Chander
	PW-13	Constable Sukhdev Singh
	PW-14	H.C.Krishan Kumar
	PW-15	ASI Maya Ram
	PW-16	Inspector Mam Chand
8.	Perusal	of the deposition of Dr.K.K.Sharma (PW3) who had
medico-l	egally exa	mined Chuhar Singh (PW10) and Head Constable
Krishan	Kumar (PW	14), it is revealed that Chuhar Singh (PW10) had
received	sharp-edg	ed injury on his abdomen while there were simple

¶36

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

{5}

¶38

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶39

injuries on the person of Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14). So far as Chuhar Singh (PW10) is concerned, he did not support the prosecution case and gave a clean chit to all the appellants. He even failed to identify the appellants being assailants. However, Mohinder Singh (PW11) and Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) fully supported the prosecution version and described the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Nothing material could be elicited from the lengthy cross-examination conducted by the appellants. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the appellants, in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., were recorded. The appellants denied the incriminating material available on record. In answer to the last question, Sultan Singh (appellant) replied as follows:-

¶40

“On the day of occurrence a few customers present at dhaba and taking meal started fighting inter se. When PW Chuhar Singh tried to intervene, he suffered injuries at the hands of customers who were fighting inter se. Since it was foggy night and dark so those customers/assailants could not be identified who rather fled away in their car and thereafter, Head Constable Krishan Kumar and ASI Maya Ram asked Sultan Singh to make payment for treatment of Chuhar Singh and they also demanded police money and when Sultan Singh declined to oblige by making any such payment, thereafter police people started abusing him and threatening him and in that situation, Sultan Singh also retaliated and protested and then Head Constable Krishan Kumar and ASI Maya Ram left the spot and after sometime they came back alongwith SI Mam Chand the then SHO and some constables and they they showed their might by thrashing and belabouring Sultan Singh for daring to open his mouth before the police and thereafter we were falsely implicated

¶41

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶43

{6}

¶44

in the present case. Otherwise, no occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses took place rather we the victims have been roped in the present case by the police of Shahabad.”

¶45

No defence evidence was produced by the appellants.

¶46

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 341, 342, and 353, IPC, however, they were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, and ordered to undergo the sentences as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. After going through the whole material, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial court had rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, and as such, the learned counsel for the appellants had correctly opted not to challenge their conviction.

¶47

There appears to be substance in the arguments of the learned Senior counsel representing the appellants that the appellants being first offenders; the police party had gone to the hotel of the appellants at 1.00 a.m and the quarrel ensued all of a sudden 16 years ago; the injuries, which were simple in nature, were on nonvital parts of Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14); Chuhar Singh (PW10) who allegedly received the sharp-edged simple injury, did not support the prosecution case; and that appellants Sultan Singh and Pritam Singh remained Sarpanch for their village for several years, and as such they should be extended the benefit of probation in the present case.

¶48

Though the learned counsel for the State submits that the

¶49

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶50

{7}

¶51

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶52

appellants had caused injuries to Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) by means of deadly weapons, therefore, they should not be released on probation but he could not contradict the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are the first offenders and as per provisions contained in Section 360, Cr.P.C, they can be released on probation. He further submits that in case the appellants are ordered to be released on probation, in that eventuality, adequate compensation be awarded to Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) an injured person.

¶53

In view of the fact that the appellants are first offenders and they have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC, only and the manner in which the quarrel had ensued, their substantive sentences are suspended and they are ordered to be released on probation for a period of two years subject to their furnishing bonds in the sum of 50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount within one month of passing of this order to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. During the said period of probation, they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. In case, if any of the appellants, violates the terms and conditions of the bonds to be furnished by him then he would be called by the court of competent jurisdiction to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the learned court below. Each of the appellant is also burdened with costs of 2,000/-(2,000 x 6 = 12,000/-) which shall be deposited by them at the time of execution of the bonds with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. On receipt of the amount as stated above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, shall issue

¶54

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶55

{8}

¶56

Criminal Appeal No.S-681-SB of 2003

¶57

notice to Head Constable Krishan Kumar (PW14) for collecting the amount of compensation awarded by this Court. In case any of the appellant does not follow the directions issued by this Court, then the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court shall enure qua him.

¶58

With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶59

December 12, 2013 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶60

Sharma Seema 2013.12.17 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sultan Singh and Others v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Singh and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh @ Hunny Vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Chhabra Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Darshan Singh Vs State of Pb.

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tarlochan Singh @ Tochi Vs State of Punjab