AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they both arise out of the same judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, on 26.05.2005, in Sessions Trial No. 30/04 RBT 35/2004. The facts of the case are that Laxman Dass, Simro Devi, Leela Devi, Swaran Singh and Dharam Chand (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were made to stand trial for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
After trial, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused except Laxman Dass, who was convicted of having committed an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for one year.
Laxman Dass, aggrieved by the said judgment, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2005 and prays that he may also be acquitted, whereas the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2005 challenging the acquittal of the remaining accused persons.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant, Charan Singh and his brother, Bakhshish Singh were cultivating their Shamlat land adjoining to the land of the accused, Dharam Chand, on 17.05.2002. They had employed tractor bearing registration No. HP-20-5183 driven by one Prakash for this purpose. In the meantime, Dharam Chand, his wife Leela Devi and Simro Devi objected to the complainant and his brother cultivating the land and they claimed to be in possession of the said land. They also asked the complainant and his brother to leave the fields. It was further alleged that Dharam Chand, who was having a danda in his hand, gave a blow on the head of Bakhshish Singh. In the meantime, Swaran Singh, who is the brother of Dharam Chand, also came on the spot and gave another danda blow on the head of Bakhshish Singh. Thereafter, Surinder alias Laxman Dass came with a Toka (an instrument meant for cutting grass) and attacked the complainant, Charan Singh with the Toka and inflicted injuries on the head and back of Charan Singh and on the head of Bakhshish Singh. It is further alleged that Leela Devi and Simro Devi, who were also having dandas in their hands, also inflicted injuries on the complainant and his brother. When the complainant and his brother raised a hue and cry, then Tej Pal came to the spot and rescued them from the accused persons. Thereafter, Tej Pal and Sanju (nephew of the complainant) took the injured to Una Hospital. The Doctor at Una Hospital gave telephonic information to the police station that some injured persons had been brought to the Hospital. The police officials came to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Charan Singh u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, FIR was recorded. The investigation was carried out in the matter and during the course of investigation, certain recoveries were made. The land was got demarcated from the revenue officials and finally, on completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused persons for having committed the offences aforesaid.
The stand of the accused was that it was a fight which was free for all fight in which accused persons also suffered simple as well as grievous injuries. Further, according to them, the land on which the cultivation was being done had been purchased by the accused persons from the father of the complainant sometimes in the year 1979.
Both sides examined a number of witnesses. It is not necessary to deal with the entire evidence in detail. It would be suffice to say that the learned trial Court has dealt with the evidence in a very proper manner.
PW-11, Charan Singh, who was the complainant, has deposed about the incident and entirely supports the prosecution story. According to him, first the fight took place between Dharam Chand and the complainant side, but later on Dharam Chand''s brother Swaran Singh and their wives Simro Devi and Leela Devi started abusing them and beating them with dandas. Thereafter, Laxman Dass came to the spot with a Gandasi in his hand and gave blows to Charan Singh and Bakhshish Singh. According to the complainant side, the land, which was being cultivated by them, was in their possession since partition.
The medical evidence also supports the prosecution story. The stand of the defence is that the complainant side was the aggressor party. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that there is a dispute between the parties as to who is in possession of the land. It is also manifestly clear that both the parties sustained injuries. All the accused persons except Laxman Dass were armed with dandas. The complainant party started cultivation of the land and as held by the learned trial Court, since they were ploughing the land through tractor, the acquitted persons had a private defence to their property under bonafide claim of their possession to the land. Admittedly, the land is Shamlat land owned by the State. Therefore, neither the complainant side nor the accused persons can be owners of the land, but even an encroacher is entitled to protect his possession on the land.
As rightly held by the learned trial Court as far as the four accused, Simro Devi, Leela Devi, Swaran Singh and Dharam Chand, are concerned, they were involved in a free for all fight with the complainant side and it cannot be said with certainty who was at fault. Therefore, these four persons were rightly acquitted. As far as Laxman Dass is concerned, he came to the spot later on when the fight was almost over. He was carrying a Gandasi/Toka in his hand, which is a sharp edged instrument and he gave a blow of this Gandasi/Toka on the head of PW-12, Bakhshish Singh and when complainant, PW-11, Charan Singh, intervened, he was also given a blow on his head. The statements of Bakhshish Singh and Charan Singh in this behalf have been corroborated by PW-13, Tej Pal and PW-14, Prakash Chand, the driver of the tractor.
As far as Laxman Dass is concerned, no defence was available to him since he was never attacked by the complainant party and he reached later on. Therefore, he was rightly convicted of the aforesaid offences.
At this stage, we would point out that one of the victims, complainant Shri Charan Singh, has appeared in person in Court and stated that the matter has been settled between the parties and there is now no dispute between them. The offence for which the accused has been convicted is a non-compoundable offence and we cannot compound the matter. However, keeping in view the fact that the complainant side and the respondents have amicably settled their dispute and are now residing in the same village, we feel that the interest of justice will be served in case the substantial sentence upon accused-Laxman Dass is reduced to the time of the imprisonment which he has already undergone. However, the fine is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Out of this fine, Rs. 10,000/- has already been deposited and the balance fine be deposited within eight weeks from today, failing which the accused shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. In case, the fine is deposited, then out of the total amount, Rs. 7,500/- each shall be paid to Charan Singh and Bakhshish Singh, injured and the remaining Rs. 5,000/- shall go to the State coffers. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the State, being Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2005, is dismissed and the appeal filed by accused-Laxman Dass, being Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2005, is partly allowed only with regard to the sentence in the aforesaid terms.