Partly allowed

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2017CRA-S/618/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, holding injuries were not vital and there was no intention to kill. However, it upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 450 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, modifying the term to time already served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; sentence under Section 450 IPC upheld but reduced to time already undergone.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRA-S-618-SB-2004

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-S-618-SB-2004

¶5

Reserved on: 25.05.2017 Pronounced on : 14.07.2017

Pritam Singh

..... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. TN Sarup, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶14

RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

¶15

Appellant-Pritam Singh, has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay a fine of 1000/- under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years and to pay a fine of 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months under Section 450 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶16

In the instant case, the story unfolded by the prosecution is that Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy andon receipt of medical ruqa Ex. PH, from Civil Hospital, Bathinda regarding authenticity of this document

¶17

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -2-

¶18

admission of Kulwinder Singh S/o Gurditta Singh resident of Bajak with fire arm injury, ASI Paramjit Singh (since deceased) went to Civil Hospital, Bathinda and moved an application Ex. PJ before the Medical Officer to seek his opinion as to whether injured was fit to make statement, whereupon the treating doctor through his endorsement Ex. PJ/1 reported that the patient was in operation theater. Consequently, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of complainant-Gurditta Singh, Ex. PA to the effect that he was an agriculturist and has two sons, namely, Kulwinder Singh (injured) and Sukhmander Singh and two nephews, namely, Shivraj Singh and Sukhraj Singh. They owned a joint tractor make 'Eicher' bearing registration No. PB-03-0458 of red colour which stood parked in the house of his nephew Sukhraj Singh. Around 9.00 a.m. on 17.02.2000, they had to take out the tractor to collect wheat chaff and when his son Kulwinder Singh reached near the tractor, he found that the bigger tyre of the tractor was punctured. He called his nephew Sukhraj Singh from inside the house to change the same and when they were busy in that process, his nephew Sukhraj Singh was standing near the front tyre, whereas Kulwinder Singh was standing at the back side of big tyre. In the meanwhile, their neighbourers, namely, Pritam Singh (appellant herein) armed with his licenced .12 bore DBBL gun along with Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh sons of Bachittar Singh Prajapat both armed with Gandassas came there. After entering the door, Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh, aforesaid raised Lalkara that Kulwinder Singh (injured) should not be spared as he, per chance, had come in front of them. On their saying so, the appellant fired a gun shot towards Kulwinder Singh, with an intention to kill him which hit on the outer side of his right middle finger. When Kulwinder Singh tried to

¶19

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -3-

¶21

enter inside the house, the appellant fired another shot towards him which hit on the back of his right thigh and the testicles. As a result thereof, Kulwinder Singh, fell down. On their raising alarm, the appellant reloaded his gun and all the assailants ran away towards their house along with their respective weapons and came on its roof. The appellant fired two shots at complainant-Gurditta Singh from the roof of his house which fortunately did not hit him, though were fired with an intention to kill him. The motive behind the occurrence was that daughter of the appellant was studying in the village school and they had doubt that Kulwinder Singh (injured) was chasing her with bad intention. For this reason, appellant-Pritam Singh had discontinued the studies of his daughter and was nursing grudge against Kulwinder Singh. Therefore, the accused party with common intention had fired shots upon Kulwinder Singh to kill him and the complainant.

¶22

After making endorsement Ex. PA/1, the Investigating Officer, had sent the statement of the complainant to the police station on the basis of which, formal FIR No. 20 dated 17.02.2000 (Ex. PA/2) was registered under Sections 307 and 450 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Investigating Officer, visited the place of occurrence. Empty cartridges were recovered from the spot. The same were converted into two separate sealed parcels with seal bearing impression 'PS' and were taken into police possession vide recovery memos Ex. PB and PC. Blood stained and simple earth was lifted from the spot and after converting into two parcels sealed with seal bearing impression 'PS', the same was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only against the appellant was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate, by placing Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh in column

¶23

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -4-

¶25

No. 2 being innocent.

¶26

On commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, initially, the charges under Sections 307 and 450 IPC were framed only against the appellant, but after recording some evidence, co-accused, Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh were also summoned to face trial. Consequently, fresh charges against the appellant under Sections 307 & 450 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act was framed, whereas his co-accused, Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh, were charge-sheeted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶27

The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 12 witnesses and closed its evidence.

¶28

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and his co-accused, namely, Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, putting entire incriminating evidence brought on record against them to which, they denied and pleaded their false implication. In defence, they examined DW-1 Sukhdev Singh.

¶29

On appraisal of evidence brought on record by the prosecution and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, acquitted Dalip Singh and Amarjit Singh and convicted and sentenced the appellant-Pritam Singh as referred to above in the opening part of this judgment.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. As per own version of the prosecution/complainant, the motive behind the occurrence was that appellant-Pritam Singh, had a doubt that Kulwinder Singh, used to chase his school going daughter with bad

¶31

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶32

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -5-

¶33

intention and for that reason, he discontinued her studies and started nursing grudge against Kulwinder Singh (injured). While admitting the incident, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the shots were fired by the appellant upon Kulwinder Singh, on provocation by the injured, on noticing that on the date of incident in the early dark hours, when his daughter had gone to throw cow dung in the Ruri in front of their house, Kulwinder Singh came there and caught hold of her with an intention to molest and rape her. On raising hue and cry by his daughter, the appellant had fired gun shots in self-defence and to save the honour of his daughter in which Kulwinder Singh suffered injuries. Thus, conviction of the appellant is wrong and illegal. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the above factual aspect of the case.

¶34

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶35

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned State counsel.

¶36

For effective adjudication and ready reference, Section 307 IPC is reproduced as under:-

¶37

“307. Attempt to murder. - Whoever does any act with

¶38

such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender

¶39

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -6-

¶41

shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

¶42

Attempts by life-convicts.- [When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]

¶43

Illustrations

¶44

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

¶45

(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.

¶46

(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of [the first paragraph of] this section.

¶47

(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.”

¶48

To see as to whether appellant-Pritam Singh had committed any

¶49

¶50

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶51

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -7-

¶52

offence under Section 307 IPC, we have to scan the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Admittedly, none of the fire arm injuries suffered by Kulwinder Singh, was on the vital part of his body as is clear from the statement of PW-5 Dr. H.L. Garg, who radiologically examined Kulwinder Singh and found two fractures i.e. one on the middle phalynx of right hand and comminuted fracture of shaft of the femur. There was no bone injury on his pelvis. PW-6 Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg, in cross-examination, testified that injuries No. 1 and 2 on the person of Kulwinder Singh were not on his vital part. The fire shot was given from a distance of 12 feet. Thus, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the appellant had an intention to kill the injured. More so, there is no opinion of any doctor on the file that any of the injuries allegedly suffered by Kulwinder Singh was dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. In view of the above discussion, appellant-Pritam Singh is liable to be acquitted under Section 307 IPC.

¶53

As far as conviction of the appellant under Section 450 IPC is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years. The plea taken by the appellant in his defence that Kulwinder Singh-injured, used to tease his school going daughter and for that reason he got struck off her name from the village school find strength from the statement of DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, retired Principal of the village school. This witness had testified that Beer Pal Kaur D/o Pritam Singh-appellant was his student. In the year 1998, she had complained to him against Kulwinder Singh-injured, ex-student of their school that he used to tease her on the way to school, whereupon he enquired from various teachers to check up the authenticity of the complaint of Beer Pal Kaur and found that earlier also, she had made similar complaint against Kulwinder Singh.

¶54

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶55

CRA-S-618-SB-2004 -8-

¶56

Resultantly, he went to the village of Kulwinder Singh and complained to his father about his wrong acts. Even he had also asked Kulwinder Singh not to do so. The above witness was an independent witness and, therefore, his testimony is trust worthy, as there was no reason for him in his advance age to depose falsely. Taking into account the above testimony of DW-1 Sukhdev Singh, coupled with motive narrated by the complainant-Gurditta Singh in his statement Ex. PA which set law into motion, it is evident that Kulwinder Singh son of the complainant used to tease the daughter of the appellant and for that reason, he had got struck off her name from the school rolls. It is also apparent that on the date of incident, when the daughter of the appellant had gone to throw cow dung cakes on the Ruri , Kulwinder Singh came there and tried to molest her by catching hold of her which necessitated the appellant to save the honour of his daughter from the injured and, thus, he fired gun shots upon the injured.

¶57

However, the act of the appellant is disproportionate to the above misconduct of Kulwinder Singh. It was sheer luck of Kulwinder Singh that he did not receive any fire arm injury on his vital part.

¶58

In view of the discussion made above, the impugned judgment of conviction holding the appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC is hereby set aside, whereas the sentence awarded under Section 450 IPC is upheld. However, a perusal of custody certificate of the appellant shows that he has already undergone the actual sentence of 1 year, 11 months and 9 days as on 04.03.2017, out of the total sentence of 3 years. Since, the appellant has already suffered major part of his total sentence of 3 years, the same is reduced to the period already undergone by him under Section 450 IPC.

¶59

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶60

-9-

¶61

CRA-S-618-SB-2004

¶62

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed with the above

¶63

modification.

¶64

July 14^th , 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶65

Rishu Kataria 2017.07.14 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh 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

M/S R.K. Traders, Government Contractor and General Order Supplier Vs Parveen Kumar

Paramjit Singh Vs Rupinder Kaur & Ors.

Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vidya Sagar Vs Ashok Sangwan and Anr.

Jai Bhagwan and Ors. Vs Pardeep Kumar

Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others