AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral):
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (adhoc)/Fast Track Court, Ambala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.
Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.369 dated 24.09.2003, was registered at the instance of ‘Inspector Surender Singh’, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Ambala City. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant and his co-accused, namely ‘Dalip Singh @ Biker’ and ‘Gopal Singh’, were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.
The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial, which, by virtue of impugned judgment, culminated into the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC, whereas co-accused ‘Dalip Singh @ Biker’ and ‘Sukhwinder Singh’ were acquitted. Thus, vide order dated 13.07.2005, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentence was awarded to the appellant:-
| Offence under Section | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 324 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. |
Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.
In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Inspector Surender Singh’, who had reported that on 24.09.2003, he was leading a team of police officials deputed to maintain law and order in the Court compound because on that day hearing of the case of ‘Piara Singh’ was scheduled to take place in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. According to above named police officer accused ‘Piara Singh’ had come in a TATA Sumo, bearing registration number DL-8CF-7539, along with his associates duly escorted by ‘ASI Narinder Singh’ and other police officials.
The above named police officer further reported that number of followers of ‘Piara Singh’, too, had gathered in the compound for the glimpse of ‘Baba Piara Singh’. As per complainant the officers of Punjab Police were also present there. It was also reported by the above named police officer when ‘Ms. Davinder Kaur Advocate’ along with ‘Davinder Singh’ and ‘Harbahjan Singh’ were discussing something with ‘Piara Singh’ inside TATA Sumo, one youth came to meet ‘Piara Singh’ and when ‘Piara Singh’ opened the window of the vehicle the above said youth picked up two knives raised hue & cry and launched an assault upon him. According to above named police officer the above said youth was immediately over powered by the police officials and on inquiry he disclosed his name as ‘Gopal Singh’.
It is case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned report formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court.
To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:-
Ex.PA - Affidavit of ASI Ram Kumar
Ex.PB - Affidavit of ASI Sat Narain
Ex.PC - Scaled Site plan of Place of occurrence
Ex.PD - The information memo sent to the police station (ruqqa)
Ex.PD/1 - Endorsement on information memo
Ex.PE - Copy of FIR
Ex.PF - Seizure Memo of motorcycle recovered from Sukhwinder Singh
Ex.PG - Report of Forensic Science Laboratory
Ex.PH - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Dharam Singh
Ex.PJ - Recovery memo of knife
Ex.PK - Rough sketch of knife recovered from Gopal Singh
Ex.PL - Application to Medical Officer, PGI Chandigarh of Piara Singh
Ex.PM - Recovery memo of blood stained cloths of Piara Singh
Ex.PN - Copy of DDR No.37 dated 24.09.2003
Ex.PQ - Disclosure statement of accused Sukhvinder Singh
Ex.PR - Rough site plan of the place of recovery of motorcycle from Sukhwinder Singh
Ex.PS - Application seeking doctor’s opinion regarding injury inflicted upon Piara Singh, by Gopal with the help of knife
Ex.PS/1 - Doctor’s opinion regarding knife
Ex.PT - Disclosure statement of appellant Gopal Singh
Ex.PU - Copy of MLR of Piara Singh
Ex.P1 - Shirt
Ex.P2 - Pajama
Ex.P3 - Banyan
Ex.P7 - Knife
To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:-
PW-1 - ASI Ram Kumar
PW-2 - ASI Sat Narain
PW-3 - Constable Ram Saran
PW-4 - HC Sujan Singh
PW-5 - Constable Zile Singh
PW-6 - Inspector Vijay Kumar
PW-7 - Devinder Kumar
PW-8 - Piara Singh
PW-9 - Dharam Singh
PW-10 - Bhajan Singh
PW-11 - ASI Narinder Singh
PW-12 - HC Nachhattar Singh
PW-13 - SI Subhash Chand
PW-14 - AMHC Santokh Singh
PW-15 - SI Ajmer Singh
PW-16 - HC Satbir Singh
PW-17 - Dr. Devinder Singh
PW-18 - Inspector Surinder Singh (Retd.)
Once the prosecution evidence was complete, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellant, but no witness in his defence evidence was examined by the appellant. However, the appellant had relied upon documentary evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the appellant, were:-
Ex.DA - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Piara Singh
Ex.DB - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Devender Kumar
Ex.D3 - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Bhajan Singh
Ex.D4 - Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of ASI Narender Singh
Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC was pronounced. Accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove.
Heard.
It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the appellant, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumption, the unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was believed by the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the appellant the learned trial Court had failed to apply its judicial mind, and that, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises findings of conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC were recorded.
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court ignored this carnal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an inference that all the necessary ingredients, meant for the commission of offence, for which the appellant was convicted had been established. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case against the appellant could not be proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court has returned the finding of conviction.
However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant categorically contends that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on quantum of sentence only.
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2003. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 23 years and that, in fact, he has already suffered more punishment than he deserved. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the offence in question was the first offence committed by the appellant, and that before or after the abovesaid offence, the appellant has not been prosecuted for any other offence.
In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of nine months & eleven days. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant was convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient.
Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of three years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of less than three years imprisonment. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal.
The record has been perused carefully.
Once it is categorical stand of the appellant that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellant, for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.
As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of nine months & eleven days, against the awarded sentence of three years, and that he was never prosecuted for any offence, either before the instant case or thereafter, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view.
In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced.
In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which are required to be taken into consideration: -
that the incident in question had taken place about 23 years ago;
that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 23 years; and
that against the awarded sentence of three years, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for a period of nine months & eleven days;
that the appellant has clean record, before and after the offence in question; and
that appellant is a 47-year-old person, and that he was young when the offence was committed.
As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to meet the ends of justice.
As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.