Manga Singh vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRA-S-2827-SB of 2013 titled "Manga Singh vs. State of Punjab" and CRR No. 2100 of 2013 titled "Harpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and another", as these have arisen out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CRA-S-2827-SB of 2013.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Sections 458, 459 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, detailed hereinbelow:-

Dalip Kaur, injured-victim was admitted in Adesh Hospital, Muktsar and was declared unfit to make statement on 31.1.2010 and 1.2.2010. Harpal Singh son of Dalip Kaur got recorded his statement that he with his family has been residing in House No. 3164, Sector-50-D, Chandigarh being posted as Legal Advisor in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh. His mother Dalip Kaur was living alone in their house in village Jhurar. On 31.1.2010, at about 7.30 p.m., he received intimation that some unknown person has caused injuries to Dalip Kaur by entering their house to commit theft and Tek Singh son of Baggar Singh had taken his mother for medical treatment to Adesh Hospital, Muktsar. He alongwith his son Davinderjit Singh and wife Paramjit Kaur reached Adesh Hospital, Muktsar where his mother was under treatment.

On the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered and investigation commenced. The statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The accused was arrested and weapon of offence was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. The statement of injured-victim Dalip Kaur was recorded and her medico legal report was obtained from Adesh Hospital, Muktsar Sahib. On completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court for commencement of trial.

After necessary compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence under Sections 458, 459 IPC being exclusively triable by the said court.

After having heard counsel for the parties and considering the material relied upon by the prosecution, charge under Sections 458, 459 and 324 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dalip Kaur, injured PW1, Dr. Rohit Chopta PW2, Harpal Singh complainant PW3, ASI Gurmeet Singh PW4, Sucha Singh PW7, ASI Gurmail Singh PW8, ASI Tejinder Singh PW9, Gursahib Singh PW10, HC Gurmel Singh PW11, Onkar Chand PW12 and Bhupinder Singh PW13. Report of the chemical examiner Ex. P22 was also tendered into evidence.

Statement of the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded his false implication. He has raised the plea that he was falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry in the village. However, he did not examine any witness in defence.

The learned trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution held the accused guilty of committing offence charged against him and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced for the offences, notice hereinbefore.

Counsel for the appellant contends that the police did not conduct proper investigation to put the real culprits to trial and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further argued that as per statement of Dalip Kaur, four persons entered her house during midnight but no effort was made by the investigating agency to arrest the remaining persons. The prosecution case is not free from embellishments and shortcomings of which benefit is liable to be extended to the accused. To bring home his contention, he has assailed the prosecution case on different counts.

The first submission made by counsel is that money, garments, blankets etc. allegedly stolen from the house were not recovered from the accused. The recovery of one mobile phone from the accused after 25 days of the occurrence, has been planted as a result of padding to create evidence. No witness from the public was associated during interrogation of the accused or recovery in pursuance of alleged disclosure statement made by him. There is no cogent, convincing and tangible evidence on record to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.

Counsel, in the alternative, has submitted that the appellant has already suffered custody for a period of 04 years and about 06 months as on date and the substantive sentence awarded to him may be reduced to already undergone.

Counsel for the State has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court with the submission that there is no error much less illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial court, warranting intervention by this Court. Counsel has also opposed the prayer of the appellant for reduction in sentence with the plea that the appellant assaulted an old lady more than 70 years of age and inflicted serious injuries as a result of which she lost sight of one eye.

Counsel representing the complainant (petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 2100 of 2013) has firmly opposed the plea of the appellant for reduction in sentence on the ground that he is guilty of mis-stating facts before the trial court. The appellant, at the time of hearing on quantum of sentence by the trial court stated that he has a small daughter and his wife has already passed away when as a matter of fact, his wife is alive.

In reply, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the factum of death of his wife is the result of some misconception as the appellant had raised a plea that his wife has left the house and as a result, there is nobody in the house to look after his aged mother and small daughter.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The criminal proceedings were initiated by Harpal Singh son of Dalip Kaur. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Dalip Kaur, victim appeared in the witness box and corroborated her version given to the police after she was discharged from the hospital. Dalip Kaur duly identified the accused to be the person who caused injuries to her with a sharp edged weapon. During cross examination of Dalip Kaur, no such fact has been elicited to create any doubt in her version much less to shake her credibility and truthfulness. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that Dalip Kaur had any motive to indict the appellant falsely. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly the statement of the star witness, Dalip Kaur duly corroborated by medical evidence in view of testimony of Dr. Rohit Chopra PW2 from Adesh Hospital, Muktsar. Dr. Rohit Chopra proved the injuries found on the person of the injured. A relevant extract from the statement of Dr. Rohit Chopra is quoted for ready reference:-

"On 31.1.2010, I was posted as Consultant Dental Surgeon at Adesh Hospital and Search Centre, Sri Muktsar Sahib. At 9.00 AM on that day injured Dalip Kaur wife of Hazur Singh, 75 years, Female, r/o VPO Jhorar, Tehsil Malout District Muktsar was admitted in the Hospital. The patient was brought by Tek Singh son of Baggar Singh r/o Jhorar. I medico legally examined the injured and made the following observations:-

On medical examination deep wound over left side of face, right side of chin, above nose, over upper lip was present. The wound was deep and the underlying facial bones were exposed.

C.T. Scan was advised and as per C.T. Scan report there was a fracture of right Maxilla, fracture of bilateral Nasal bones, fracture of right side of mandible and fracture of right maxillary bone. There was avulsion of teeth in the right side of maxilla. There was a fracture of right lateral wall of orbit and fracture of frontal wall.

Multiple lacerated wound over bone on right and left hands were present and underlying bone were exposed.

Injuries No. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and the kind of weapon used was sharp for all the injuries. I have brought the original MLR register with me today in the Court and Ex. P1 is the correct original report duly signed and prepared by me and I identify my signatures on it. Ex. P2 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries. Information regarding the admission of injured Dalip Kaur was sent to SHO, P.S. Sadar Muktsar vide police information Ex. P3. Ex. P4 is the attested correct copy of bed head ticket of the injured, the original of which I have brought today in the Court. Copy of the C.T. Scan report is attested by me and I identify my signatures at Ex. P5. The patient/injured Dalip Kaur was referred for further treatment and management on 01-02-2010."

Keeping in view the evidence on record, I find myself unable to accept the submissions made by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove his culpability beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appellant cannot gain any advantage to his plea even if the investigating agency has failed to bring other culprits to book by conducting further investigation in the matter. Even otherwise, the appellant was the best person to disclose the identity of others associated with him in commission of crime.

The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years each for offence under Sections 458 and 459 IPC and for a period of 03 years for offence u/s 324 IPC. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant is not a previous convict nor any other criminal case stands registered against him. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries inflicted by him taking advantage of loneliness of an old lady of about 70 years of age, I do not think it to be fit case where he deserves any leniency seeking reduction in sentence. However, at the same time, I do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant that substantive sentence awarded to the appellant requires to be enhanced.

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal and the revision stand dismissed. As a result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are affirmed.