Vikrant Sharma & Ors. vs State of Punjab

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 08.12.2004, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.180 dated 24.07.2002, was registered at the instance of ‘Rajinder Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 120-B, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Pathankot. In view of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellants and their co-accused were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.

The appellants participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue of impugned judgment, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellants and their co-accused, namely ‘Sandeep Palta’. Thus, vide order dated 08.12.2004, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentences were awarded to the appellants and the above-named co-accused:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Rajinder Singh’, the complainant. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he was an agriculturist, and that on 23.07.2002, his uncle’s son ‘Jaswant Singh’ had gone to meet his sister in Village Gandla Lahri. As per complainant, in return journey, at Khanpur square, ‘Vikrant Sharma’ and other assailants met ‘Jaswant Singh’ and proclaimed that they would teach a lesson, to him, for helping ‘Ajay Singh’, in the dispute between children, which was settled amicably. According to complainant, ‘Jaswant Singh’ cleverly managed to escape from the spot and reached his home. As per complainant, when ‘Jaswant Singh’ told them about the incident, they decided to report that matter to the Sarpanch of Village Manwal.

The complainant further stated that when he along with ‘Onkar Singh’ and ‘Vijay Singh’ was going to the house of Sarpanch to complain about the conduct of ‘Vikrant Sharma’, they noticed from a distance of 30 yards that ‘Vikrant Sharma’ and other assailants, were present at Khanpur square. According to complainant, when they (the complainant and others) were seen by ‘Sandeep Palta’, he exhorted that ‘Onkar Singh’ and others have come and they should be killed.

As per complainant, thereafter ‘Sandeep Palta’ hit ‘Onkar Singh’ with a datar, which was aimed at his head, but it was hit on his left arm, as ‘Onkar Singh’ raised his hand to save his head. The complainant further alleged that thereafter, ‘Vikrant Sharma’ gave a sword blow with an intention to kill ‘Onkar Singh’ and aimed the blow on his head. However ‘Onkar Singh’ again raised his left arm and the sword hit the wrist of his left arm, which got chopped off from the hand and fell down. According to complainant, thereafter ‘Arun Kumar’ gave a gandasi blow to ‘Onkar Singh’, which hit on his left leg, due to which ‘Onkar Singh’ started bleeding. The complainant further stated that thereafter ‘Vipan Puri’ caught hold of ‘Onkar Singh’ from his hair and threw him on the ground and gave kick blows to him.

As per complainant, 4-5 other persons, whom he could not recognize, gave fist blows to ‘Onkar Singh’, but somehow, they (the complainant party) managed to rescue ‘Onkar Singh’ from the clutches of assailants, and that after the incident, all the assailants ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. According to complainant, thereafter, they got ‘Onkar Singh’ admitted in Civil Hospital Pathankot, where he was examined medico-legally, and thereafter, referred to CMC Ludhiana.

It was also alleged by the complainant that the motive behind the abovementioned incident was that few days before the occurrence, ‘Mandeep Palta’ had an altercation with ‘Ajay Singh’ and the dispute was settled in the Panchayat on 22.07.2002, but ‘Mandeep Palta’ did not want to settle the matter, amicably, and therefore, ‘ASI Ashok Kumar’, who had retired from the Police Department, incited other accused to assault ‘Onkar Singh’.

It was case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed.

To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellants, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution were:-

To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:-

Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellants. In their defence evidence, the appellants examined two witnesses. They were:-

Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellants to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellants, was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinbefore.

Heard.

It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, being outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Sections 307, 326, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC were not established by the prosecution, and the evidence was grossly inadequate to meet the standard prescribed under the law for proving a charge. As per learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that charges against the appellants had been proved. The learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants have further contended that the appellants were wrongly held guilty, and convicted by the learned trial Court.

However, during the course of arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants have contended that in the instant appeal, the appellants are not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants have categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order on the quantum of sentence only.

It has been further contended by learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants that the incident had taken place way back in the year 2002. According to learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 24 years and have, in fact, already suffered more punishment than they deserved. It has further been submitted on behalf of appellants that the offence in question was the first offence committed by the appellants, and that after the offence, related to present case, the appellants have not been prosecuted for any other offence. According to learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have joined the mainstream of a law-abiding society and that is why they have not indulged in any criminal activity for more than 24 years.

In addition to above, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants have also argued that in the present case, the appellant No.1, namely ‘Vikrant Sharma’, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, five months & four days, appellant No.2 ‘Vipan Puri’ for four months & seven days and appellant No.3 ‘Arun Kumar’ for six months & fifteen days. According to learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appellants, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellants were convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellants may be treated to be sufficient.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellants have been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 (Vikrant Sharma), i.e. imprisonment for a period of seven years and to the appellant No.2 (Vipan Puri) & appellant No.3 (Arun Kumar), i.e. imprisonment for a period of two years, is already on lower side, and that the appellants are not entitled to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than seven and two years, respectively. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal.

The record has been perused carefully.

Once it is a categorical stand of the appellants that they are not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 120-B, 148, 149 of IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.

As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant No.1, namely ‘Vikrant Sharma’, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, five months & four days, appellant No.2 ‘Vipan Puri’ for four months & seven days and appellant No.3 ‘Arun Kumar’ for six months & fifteen days, against the awarded sentence, and that they have not been prosecuted for any offence after the instant case, it is hereby held that the appellants are entitled to a lenient view.

In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellants needs to be rationalized and reduced.

In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which need consideration: -

As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellants are entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, is adequate to meet the ends of justice.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.