AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anita Chaudhry, J.—The present judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeal No. S-1750-SB of 2007 bearing title Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Crl. Revision No. 2279 of 2007 bearing title Mohinder Singh Vs. Sajjan Singh and another, which have arisen out of the judgment of conviction dated 14.08.2007, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda in FIR No. 170 dated 23.10.2005 relating to P.S. Rampur. Appellant Sajjan Singh was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months u/s 307 IPC. The appellant is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal. The complainant Mohinder Singh has preferred a revision as he is aggrieved because of lesser punishment and seeks enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant. The factual matrix in which the appellant Sajjan Singh came to be prosecuted and was convicted needs to be set out in detail. Ranbir Singh injured and Sajjan Singh accused are firemen in the fire-brigade office. The incident took place on 22.10.2005 at 9:40 P.M. in the office. Sajjan Singh appellant started abusing Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh called up his father Mohinder Singh and asked him to reach the office. Mohinder Singh reached the office and asked the reason for showering abuses on which Sajjan Singh complained that Ranbir Singh had concealed the daily diary register. Ranbir Singh replied that he had not hidden the register. Sajjan Singh took out a knife and called out that he would be taught a lesson for telling lies and saying so, he inflicted a knife blow in the abdomen of the Ranbir. Ranbir Singh fell down and Sajjan Singh fled from the spot alongwith his knife. On hearing the cries, Prem Singh, Driver and Surender Kumar, Fireman had rushed inside. Mohinder Singh with the help of Prem Singh and Surender Kumar shifted Ranbir Singh to the Government Hospital Rampura. Ranbir Singh was later shifted to Government Hospital, Bhatinda and then to CMC Ludhiana, the same night. The complainant had mentioned in his report that the motive for the attack was that Sajjan Singh suspected that Ranbir Singh had hidden the daily diary register. The police completed the investigation and laid its report u/s 307 IPC.
The case was committed. Charge was framed u/s 307 IPC, before the Sessions Court. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution had examined nine witnesses including Mohinder Singh PW 2, Ranbir Singh injured PW 3, two Medical Officers besides the Investigating Officer.
In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C., the accused took the plea that Ranbir Singh was habitual and used to consume liquor and was a quarrelsome person and inflicted injuries to other persons and under the influence of liquor he had abused him and had damaged the window panes of the office in November, 2004 and he had made a complaint to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee. He further stated that Ranbir Singh had been suspended on 08.12.2004 and he was annoyed with him. He stated that on the night of the alleged occurrence, he was not performing duty and had not worn his dress and he abused him and tried to kill him but he saved himself and accidentally the knife hit his abdomen and the injury was not caused by him. He (appellant) stated that he was admitted in the Civil Hospital by his wife and Mohinder Singh was not present at the time of occurrence and a false story has been concocted to falsely implicate him.
By way of defence, the accused had examined Swaran Singh, Junior Assistant DW 1 who brought the medical reimbursement file of Ranbir Singh and the Roznamcha dated 07.08.2006.
The trial ended in conviction and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment mentioned aforesaid.
The appellant Sajjan Singh has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment and the order on various grounds. On the other hand, complainant Mohinder Singh is seeking enhancement of the sentence and has preferred a revision.
I have heard the counsel for the appellant Sajjan Singh and counsel for the revisionist who was representing the complainant as well as the learned counsel representing the State and perused the records.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the true version was not given and appellant had also suffered injuries and he was examined at the hospital on the same night at 10:30 P.M. It was urged that the incident was of 2005 and both injured and the appellant were working in the same office and the appellant had undergone sentence of one and a half year and the punishment be reduced to the sentence already undergone.
The counsel for the complainant had urged that the complainant had not consumed liquor as is proved from the MLR and he was not carrying a knife and the defence stands falsified and the appeal should be dismissed.
The counsel representing the State supported the judgment.
Both Ranbir Singh injured and Sajjan Singh accused were working in the office of Fire-Brigade, Rampura as Firemen. It is not disputed that Ranbir Singh was on duty from 4:00 P.M. up to midnight. The incident started in the office around 9:40 P.M. Sajjan Singh started abusing Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh informed his father telephonically who reached the office at 10:00 P.M. The quarrel was going on. Sajjan Singh was asking for the daily diary and was accusing Ranbir of concealing the register. The witnesses have deposed that Sajjan Singh took out a knife and gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Ranbir Singh on the right side. Blood started oozing. After causing the injury Sajjan Singh ran out of the office. Prem Singh and Surender Kumar reached inside on hearing the cries.
The prosecution had examined Ranbir Singh, his father Mohinder Singh who have supported the prosecution case. There is no material contradictions. Sham Lal PW 7 had brought the attendance record relating to Sajjan Singh, Prem Singh and Ranbir Singh. He also proved the posting orders. The examination-in-chief of Dr. Punit Bansal was recorded on 28.04.2006 but he was never produced for his cross-examination and his statement was not considered by the trial Court. Dr. Rakesh Goyal PW 5 had found the following injury:-
2.2 cm x 0.4 cm incised wound on right side of abdomen 4 cm from midline at the level of lower border of umblicus, red in colour.
He had stated that the injury was dangerous to life. He had also examined Sajjan Singh and had found a superficial incised wound on the front of his left chest and had given his opinion that it could be self-suffered.
The appellant had raised a defence that Ranbir Singh was quarrelsome and was involved in cases. He had summoned the record from the office to show that he had claimed reimbursement regarding this injury but had not disclosed that it was caused by the accused. The argument cannot be accepted and is fallacious. There is no material either to show that Ranbir Singh was involved in other cases.
There is no delay in lodging the FIR. Mohinder Singh has shifted his son from one hospital to the other and was finally taken to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Initially he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Rampura then he was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda and from there he was shifted to Ludhiana and the FIR was lodged on 23.10.2005 at 3:30 P.M., there is no delay. The special report was sent at 6:30 P.M. on the same day. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the injured. It gets support from medical evidence. The Medical Officer had declared the injury dangerous to life. As a result of the above, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is upheld. According to the appellant-accused Sajjan Singh, has already under gone imprisonment for one year and six months. The incident is eight years old. The appellant is presently on bail. Both the injured and the appellant are working in the same office. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant while on bail, during the pendency of the appeal had misused the bail. The appellant has faced the agony of trial. It is a case of one injury. If the appellant is sent to jail after a number of years, it would reopen the wounds. Thus, taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to already undergone while maintaining the sentence alongwith the default clause. With this modification in the order, the appeal and the revision fail and are dismissed. Copy of this judgment be placed in CRR No. 2279 of 2007.