Shankar Lal vs State of Haryana

A.N.Jindal, J.(Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01/02.02.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, convicting and sentencing the appellantsaccused (herein referred as ''the accused'') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each under Section 323/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ each under Section 325/34 IPC.

The brief resume of facts is that on 21.01.1996, in the evening accused Shankar Lal and Om Parkash were abusing Sube Singh. Sube Singh complained to his brother Nihal Singh. On 22.10.1996 at about 7:00 a.m., Nihal Singh alongwith Sube Singh, Prithvi Singh and Hari Singh gathered at the house of Sube Singh and from where they were going to the house of Shankar Lal to lodge a protest about the incident of previous evening. While reaching in front of the house of Shankar, they gave a call to him, at this, Shankar Lal, his brother Om Parkash and Vinod Kumar, accused, armed with lathis came out of the house and exhorted to teach Nihal Singh etc. a lesson for lodging the protest. Om Parkash inflicted a lathi blow on the left hand of Nihal Singh. He inflicted second blow on the head of Sube Singh. Accused Shankar Lal inflicted a lathi blow on the left wrist of Hari Singh and accused Vinod Kumar inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Prithvi Singh. At this Nihal Singh complainant (herein referred as ''the complainant'') raised hue and cry which attracted Daya Ram and Pala Ram sons of Ram Chander, who rescued the injured whereas the accused fled away with respective weapons. Injured were shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa where on the statement of complainant FIR Ex.PN/1 was registered on 28.10.1996. The case was investigated and challan against them was presented in the Court.

The accused were charged under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Yogesh Sangwan (PW1), Dr.S.L.Aggarwal (PW2), Dr.N.K.Mittal (PW3), Constable Subhash Chander (PW4), Dr.Mohar Singh (PW5), Head Constable Joginder Singh(PW6), Sub Inspector Surat Singh (PW7), Nihal Singh (PW8), Sube Singh (PW9) and Sub Inspector Om Parkash (PW10).

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case.

Accused Vinod Kumar totally denied his involvement in the occurrence whereas the other two accused explained that the injured witnesses, under the influence of liquor, had come to the house of accused Shankar Lal and started beating his son Pawan Kumar. On hearing his cries, Shankar Lal arrived at the spot. When the injured tried to cause him injuries, he moved the lathi to defend himself which hit Prithvi Singh and Sube Singh. However, they have been involved due to party faction in the village.

In defence, the accused examined Pawan Kumar in defence.

On conclusion of the trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC as referred to above.

While opening the arguments, learned counsel for the accused appellants has advanced variety of contentions, while urging that origin of the occurrence is shrouded with suspicion. The complainant party had a motive to involve the accused party because the accused party had abused Sube Singh on the evening of 21.10.1996 and it is the complainant party, who had gathered at the house of Sube Singh and from there they had gone to the house of Shankar Lal accused, it indicates that they had gone to cause injuries to Shankar Lal whereas Pawan Kumar was found and they had tried to cause injuries to Pawan Kumar but this argument, advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of any merit. The complainant party had no grievance against Pawan Kumar. They did not cause any injury to Pawan Kumar. Even Pawan Kumar was not got medically examined. Though, Pawan Kumar has appeared in defence yet he, being the son of accused Shankar Lal, is an interested witness and could go to any extent to support the cause of the defence or the injuries caused by the accused to all the four members of the complainant party and not only to Prithvi Singh and Sube Singh. The accused did not lodge any report regarding attack by the complainant party to Pawan Kumar. They also did not cause any injuries to Shankar Lal accused. There is no denying a fact that the complainant party had gone to the house of Shankar Lal to lodge the protest for abusing Sube Singh and Prithvi Singh and the occurrence certainly had taken place in the street in front of the house of Shankar Lal. The FIR was promptly lodged in the case. PW8 Nihal Singh and PW9 Sube Singh have duly supported the prosecution case while giving details of the occurrence. Their testimonies stand corroborated by medical evidence. However, no injury was found to be dangerous to life, therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the appellants accused pleaded only for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence.

Heard. Since the accused party never knew that the complainant party would come to their house, therefore, there was no prior meeting of minds by the accused. The occurrence appears to have taken place on the hit of moment as Shankar Lal must have felt annoyed when the complainant party had gone to lodge the protest. The occurrence took place way back on 21.10.1996, therefore, the sword of sentence remained hanging over the heads of the accused since then. As such, they must have suffered much agony of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts. Injuries caused on the head of Sube Singh were not held to be dangerous to life. Lathi blows given on the head of Prithvi Singh and Sube Singh were found to be simple in nature. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case for reduction of sentence to some extent.

In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 6 months under Section 325 IPC without any alteration in the sentence of fine as well as the sentence under Section 323 IPC, as awarded by the trial Court.

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for compliance.