Jagwant Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Jagwant Singh alias Jaswant Singh alias Happy son of Bhupinder Singh was named as an accused in case FIR No. 77 dated 16.10.2001, registered at Police Station Dehlon, under Sections 356, 459, 506, 511 IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc, Ludhiana vide its judgment dated 8.1.2003 found Appellant guilty of offences under Sections 459, 392 and 506 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under:

Under Section 459 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month.

Under Section 392 IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for one month.

Under Section 506 IPC RI for six months.

The Appellant was aged 20-21 years when he committed the offence.

The prosecution case emerges in statement Ex. PB made by Albel Singh son of Mohinder Singh. He stated that he was resident of village Kalakh and was doing agricultural work and was also employed as Constable in the Punjab Armed Police. On 12.10.2001, he had gone to his village on five days'' leave. He was maintaining two houses; one for residence and the other for cattle. The house where the cattle are tethered, was having boundary wall and a gate. Gurdev Kaur, aged 75 years, mother of the complainant, used to reside in the house where the cattle were kept. On 15.10.2001 at about 8.15 p.m., the complainant had gone to the house where the cattle were kept and he heard a noise of his mother "Maar taa, Maar taa". The complainant went inside the house and found that the electric bulbs were emitting light and Jagwant Singh @ Happy, resident of the village, was having some articles in his hand. Seeing the complainant, he scaled the wall and ran away. The complainant tried to apprehend him but could not succeed due to darkness. The complainant went to his mother and inquired about the matter whereupon his mother told him that an unknown person entered the house while jumping over the wall and tried to throttle the neck of the old lady and had forcibly snatched ear-rings due to which ear lobule had split and there was bleeding. The complainant took his mother to his house and first aid was provided by Dr. Prem Singh. Since the mother was taken to the doctor, the matter could not be reported to the police.

Occurrence in the present case has taken place on 15.10.2001 at 8.15 p.m. The matter was reported to the police on the next day, i.e., 16.10.2001 at 12.10 p.m. On the basis of the statement Ex. PB, formal FIR Ex. PB/3 was registered.

On 16.10.2001 at about 12.05 a.m., P.W. 6 Dr. Ashok Kumar, Medical Officer, Dehlon had medico-legally examined Gurdev Kaur and found following injuries on her person:

Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the right ear lobule. The ear lobule is split, clotted blood present.

Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on left ear lobule split vertically, clotted blood present.

Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the dorsum of right forearm just above the wrist joint.

Complaint of pain and tenderness on front of neck.

On Cross examination, this witness stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 were possible due to snatching of ear rings.

Albel Singh complainant appeared as P.W. 2 and reiterated as to what was stated in the ruqa Ex. PB. Albel Singh, in cross examination stated that at the time of occurrence, no one else, except him, was present at the spot. Gurdev Kaur appeared as P.W. 3 and stated that she knew Jagwant Singh Appellant, present in the court. On the day of occurrence, she had recognized the accused by voice. Her both ears had started bleeding. P.W. 1 HC Karamjit Singh stated that on 19.10.2011, he was posted as MHC at Police Station Dehlon. On that day, ASI Ashok Kumar, In-charge, Police Post Laltala had deposited one parcel of ear rings. He further stated that on 21.10.2011, ASI Ashok Kumar came to the Police Station along with other police officials and injured Gurdev Kaur. He handed over the parcel to ASI Ashok Kumar who opened the same, took out the ear rings and mixed with the other ear rings available in the Police Station. Thereafter, all those ear rings were produced before Gurdev Kaur who identified her ear rings. After identification was carried, ASI Ashok Kumar again prepared a parcel of the ear rings. Identification memo Ex.PA was prepared. ASI Ashok Kumar P.W. 4 stated that on 19.10.2001, he had arrested the accused at Bus Stand Chappar at the instance of Kulwant Singh. From his personal search, a pair of ear rings was recovered. Kulwant Singh P.W. 5 stated that Gurdev Kaur was his mother. On 17.10.2001, he saw the accused and informed ASI Ashok Kumar who was standing on the naka and arrest of Jagwant Singh accused was effected.

Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evident. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and pleaded false implication.

In defence, Bhinder Singh appeared as D.W. 1. He stated that there is a party faction in the village and the accused had supported the candidate who had lost the election. Therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of the Sarpanch as he belonged to the opposite faction.

Shri Gurcharan Dass, Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has stated that there was delay in lodging of the FIR and delay has been utilized for deliberations and consultations to falsely implicate the accused and there was party faction. I am not impressed by this argument. Gurdev Kaur is an old lady, aged about 60-70 years. She was not looked after well by her son Albel Singh and was made to reside in a house where cattle were tethered. The accused being a young boy of the village, knew this fact. Therefore, he snatched her ear rings. The ear lobule of Gurdev Kaur were split and were bleeding. Ear rings were recovered from the Appellant. Albel Singh had seen the accused running away from the spot. Therefore, he would be the last person to absolve the real culprit. Elections do take place in villages and those who participate in the elections, they have their supporters. This is not a sufficient reason to implicate some body. Neither Albel Singh had himself contested the election nor Jagwant Singh accused was a candidate. Thus, a convenient witness has been examined in defence to say, that due to party faction, Appellant was falsely implicated.

Another argument raised by Counsel for the Appellant that offence of robbery is not made out, is to be rejected at the outset. Section 392 IPC defines punishment for robbery. Robbery has been defined u/s 392 as theft is called robbery when in order to commit the theft, a hurt is caused. Therefore, the Appellant has been rightly convicted u/s 392 IPC.

Shri Gurcharan Dass has further averred that offence u/s 458 IPC is made out in the present case as no grievous injury was caused to Gurdev Kaur. Reliance has been placed upon the testimony of Dr. Ashok Kumar P.W. 6 to contend that the injuries suffered by Gurdev Kaur were simple. I find force in this argument. The necessary ingredients for the commission of offence u/s 459 IPC is causing of a grievous hurt. Since in the present case, simple injury was caused, offence would fall u/s 458 IPC.

Having converted the offence u/s 458 IPC, this Court is of the view that u/s 458 IPC, the sentence of the Appellant is to be modified from RI for 3 years to RI for 2-1/2 years. However, sentence of fine and default clause are maintained.

Present occurrence pertains to October 2001. The Appellant has suffered protracted trial of about 10 years. He was a young lad of 20-21 years. Keeping age and sufferance of protracted trial, sentence imposed upon the Appellant u/s 392 IPC is reduced from 3 years to 2-1/2 years. However, sentence awarded u/s 506 IPC is maintained.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

As a result of above discussion and with modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.