Balwinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of CRA No. 1990-SB of 2003 and CRA No. 2005-SB of 2003 as both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.

Brief facts of the case are that the matter against the present appellants/accused was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide order dated 24.03.2001 on the basis of a police challan filed in FIR No. 55 dated 20.05.2000 under Sections 307, 382, 452, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station City, Gurdaspur.

The case of the prosecution was that HC Sulakhan Singh while posted at Police Station City, Gurdaspur, received a telephonic message on 20.05.2000 at 9.00 p.m. that 10/15 persons had tress-passed into the house of one Nazar Singh and were causing injuries to his family members. Accordingly, HC Sulakhan Singh along with HC Ashok Kumar proceeded to the house of Nazar Singh and on seeing the police party, the accused ran away. The police officials apprehended Prabhjit Singh, who had injuries on his head. The injured was being taken to the police Station on a Scooter bearing Registration No. PB-35-8547 but upon reaching near Government College, 10/15 persons came from behind armed with Dangs and kirpans. Some of such persons were sitting in a Tata Sumo being driven by Balwinder Singh. The accused were stated to have alighted from the Tata Sumo and first of all Dilbagh Singh gave a kirpan blow towards HC Sulakhan Singh but the police official retracted and saved himself. Then Gurmukh Singh hit HC Sulakhan Singh on his left ankle. Nachhatter Singh and Kala Singh were stated to have aimed kirpan blows towards HC Ashok Kumar, who also managed to save himself by retracting back. Thereafter accused Prabhjit Singh was taken away forcibly from the custody of the police officials and even the Scooter of HC Ashok Kumar was taken away. Statement of HC Sulakhan Singh (Ex. PA) was recorded by the police to the effect that the accused had attacked the police officials armed with kirpans with intention to kill them and had also snatched away their Scooter and as such the accused had obstructed the police officials in the performance of their official duties. On the basis of ruqa Ex. PA, FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered against the accused. The trial that commenced finally culminated in passing of the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2003 in the light of which the present appellants stand convicted for offences under Sections 148, 147, 324, 149, 353 and 186 IPC. For committing the offence under Sections 147, 148 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. For committing offence u/s 324 read with Section 149 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. For committing offence u/s 353 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and for committing offence u/s 186 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the connected appeals have at the very outset, made a statement that in the light of the cogent and convincing evidence set-forth by the prosecution, they are not assailing the conviction of the appellants on merits. Counsel would, however, pray for a lenient view to be taken as regards the sentences awarded to the appellants and the same to be reduced to the one already undergone.

On the other hand, learned State counsel even though has not seriously joined issue with the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants, yet would submit that a lenient view be taken only upon compensation being awarded to the injured party and a fine be imposed upon the appellants.

Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

In the considered view of this Court, there would be sufficient mitigating circumstances to accept the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants to take a lenient view in this case. The incident relates back to the year 2000. Learned State counsel has apprised the Court that the appellants have already undergone incarceration for periods varying from 17 days to 4 months and 9 days. Remaining sentence of the appellants already stand suspended by this Court during pendency of the appeals in the year 2003. It would also be apposite to take note of the fact that the injury suffered by HC Sulakhan Singh was not declared as grievous or dangerous to life. The injury was suffered by HC Sulakhan Singh on his left ankle and was an incised wound 2 cm x.5 cm on the left heel and the wound was skin deep. The appellants have already faced the pangs of trial as also pendency of the present appeals for a period of more than a decade.

In the totality of circumstances while upholding the conviction of the appellants and dismissing the present appeals, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone subject to their depositing a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each with the trial Court within a period of 2 months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. On realization of such fine amount, the same shall be released to the injured police officials as compensation u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the eventuality of the appellants failing to deposit the fine within the stipulated timeframe, necessary steps in accordance with law shall be initiated to take the appellants in custody for them to serve out the balance sentence.

Appeals are accordingly, disposed of.