Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2014CRA-S/246/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal against convictions for hurt under IPC sections 324 and 323, the court upheld the conviction as supported by consistent prosecution evidence but modified sentences for some appellants, granting probation due to their circumstances and the lengthy delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence of Sunil Kumar reduced to time already undergone; appellants Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar granted probation for six months with bonds and one surety eac

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002

¶3

Date of decision:5.11.2014

¶4

Sunil Kumar and others

...Appellants v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶9

.....

¶10

Present: Mr. Divjyot Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

Appellants-Sunil Kumar, Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar alias Sonu and Narinder Kumar alias Pappu have filed this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 8.1.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby accused-Sunil Kumar has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC'). Accused-appellants Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and accused-appellants Davinder Kumar and Gulshan Kumar have also been held guilty and convicted for

¶14

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002 [2]

¶16

the offence under Section 323 IPC. Sunil Kumar and Narinder Kumar have also been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. However, all the accused have been acquitted for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. Accused Channi alias Suresh Kumar has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Sunil Kumar for the offence under Section 324 and Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of `500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Davinder Kumar and Gulshan Kumar have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Sunil Kumar and Narinder Kumar have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the FIR was registered on the statement Ex.PL of Satish Kumar, in which he stated that on 27.1.1996 he and his father Walaiti Ram PW-4 closed their shop and went to the shop of Harjinder Kumar to join the birthday celebration of Ajay Kumar. Harjinder Kumar had four shops in Mohalla Kasaban, on the first floor of which was his residence. One of the shops was in occupation of Harjinder Kumar, in which he was running a drapers business. The other three shops were on rent, one was with Davinder Kumar accused.

¶18

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002 [3]

¶20

At about 5.30 p.m. when Walaiti Ram and Satish Kumar were present at the residence of Harjinder Kumar, they heard a Raula', upon which they saw below that Harjinder Kumar and his tenant Davinder Kumar accused were quarreling with each other. Davinder Kumar was abusing Harjinder Kumar. Walaiti Ram tried to stop them from doing so, but he felt it and threatened to teach them a lesson for enticing his clients. Davinder Kumar had a drapers shop adjoining the shop of Harjinder Kumar. In the meantime, Davinder Kumar hurriedly went inside his shop and brought an iron metre gauge accompanied with Sunil Kumar armed with a knife, Sonu armed with a Saria', Narinder Kumar and Channi empty handed. Davinder Kumar raised a Lalkara' to catch hold of them and to teach them a lesson for enticing their clients. Sunil Kumar caused two blows with his knife on Walaiti Ram in his abdomen. Davinder Kumar caused a blow with the metre gauge hitting on the forehead of Walaiti Ram. When Satish Kumar came forward, Sonu caused two blows with Saria' on his left arm and left hand. Channi also caused them injuries. They raised `Raula'. Harjinder Kumar, Narinder Kumar and their servant Harish Kumar rescued them. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented in Court.

¶21

On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants, framed charges for the offences under Sections 148, 307, 323 read with Section 149 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.

¶23

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002 [4]

¶25

Satbir Singh, PW-2 Dr. Gurbachan Singh, PW-3 Dr. S.P. Surilla, PW-4 Walaiti Ram, PW-5 Satish Kumar, PW-6 HC Pargat Singh, PW-7 Constable Rachhpal Singh, PW-8 ASI Sarabjit Singh, PW-9 ASI Ajit Singh and PW-10 Kartar Singh.

¶26

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. It is also stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.

¶27

In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Paramjit Kumar.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.

¶29

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the injuries have been fabricated and the appellants have been falsely implicated. He argued that the appeal of the appellants be accepted and they should be acquitted. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants argued that more than 18 years have passed after the occurrence. He prayed for lenient view and requested for reduction of sentence and releasing the appellants on probation.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that all the accused had taken active participation in the commission of offence, therefore, they

¶31

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002

¶33

[5]

¶34

have been rightly convicted and sentenced and their appeal should be dismissed.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

¶36

From the perusal of evidence on record, I find that Dr. Satbir Singh has been examined as PW-1, who medico-legally examined Walaiti Ram and found the following injuries on his person:-

¶37

“1. Fresh incised wound measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size elliptical in shape, vertically placed in the left hypochondriun of abdomen on front. Bleeding was present. Wound not probed. The wound was 10 cm from the mid line.

¶38

Fresh incised wound measuring 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm elliptical on shape vertically placed on the front of lower part of abdomen on left side about 3 cm to the left of umbilicus on lower side. Wound was probed. Bleeding was present.

¶39

Swelling in an area of 2.5 cm x 2 cm on forehead just on anterior hair line on right side.”

¶40

Injuries No.1 and 2 were kept under observation and injury No.3 was declared simple.

¶41

PW-1 Dr. Satbir Singh has further been examined, who medico-legally examined Satish Kumar and found the following injuries on his person:-

¶42

“1. Abrasion 0.5 cm in size skin deep, reddish in colour on

¶43

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002

¶45

[6]

¶46

middle phalanx of left ring finger.

¶47

Complaining of pain on medial aspect of left elbow joint. No external injury mark was visible. Tenderness was present. X-ray of left elbow joint was advised.”

¶48

PW-4 Walaiti Ram and PW-5 Satish Kumar mainly deposed as per prosecution version.

¶49

A perusal of the evidence on record shows that the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version against the appellants. There are no material discrepancies or improbabilities in the statements of the PWs. There is nothing in the cross-examination of both these material witnesses, which may make their statements unreliable. The oral statements of the PWs have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court also held that neither any injury for the offence under Section 326 IPC nor dangerous to life is made out from the evidence. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries the trial Court held that there is no fracture or dislocation of the joint. The Court declared both these injuries correctly as simple injuries. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 8.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld.

¶50

As regards the alternative relief, I find that the occurrence is of January 1996 and the appellants-accused have suffered a long protracted criminal proceedings for the last 18 years. Sunil Kumar has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the other

¶51

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶52

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002 [7]

¶53

appellants-accused Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC for two years each and to pay a fine of `500/- each. Accused Davinder and Gulshan Kumar have further been sentenced for the offence under Section 323 IPC and accused Sunil Kumar and Narinder Kumar have been sentenced for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. A perusal of the evidence shows that Narinder Kumar has not caused any injury, whereas Davinder Kumar and Gulshan Kumar have caused injuries only for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Sunil Kumar has caused injury for the offence under Section 324 IPC with a sharp edged weapon.

¶54

As brought to my notice, appellant-Sunil Kumar has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for 11 months and 15 days out of the actual sentence of imprisonment for two years. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence of imprisonment is modified and his sentence is reduced to already undergone. Whereas keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that appellants Davinder Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar were not armed with any sharp edged weapon nor any serious injury is alleged against them, therefore, I find that one opportunity should be given to them to reform themselves.

¶55

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of by upholding the conviction that has been awarded to the appellants. However, the order imposing sentence on appellants Davinder

¶56

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶57

Cr. Appeal No.S-246-SB of 2002

¶58

[8]

¶59

Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Narinder Kumar passed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that they shall be released on probation for a period of six months on their executing probation bonds with one surety each in the sum of `10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/successor Court undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behavior and will not repeat the offence, from the date of execution of bonds and in the event of their failure to do so, they shall appear and undergo the sentences as and when called upon to do so. Probation bonds be furnished within one month before the trial/successor Court. The sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial Court is converted into costs of litigation.

¶60

November 5, 2014.

¶61

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶62

hsp

¶63

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.11.20 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Vinod Kumar Chopra Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jagdeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mani Ram Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.