Back
2001 Supreme(HP) 301
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
JAGAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.257 of 1999
Decided On : 10/19/2001
For the Appellants:Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.M. Negi, Asstt. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimony, medical evidence, and the failure to prove the plea of alibi to establish the guilt of the accused persons.
Headnote:
Probation of Offenders Act - Land Dispute - Sections 147, 325, 324, 149 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 147, 325, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were referenced and discussed by the court. The court analyzed the evidence and medical reports to establish the guilt of the accused persons under the mentioned sections. The court also applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to release the accused on probation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute leading to a quarrel where the accused persons caused injuries to individuals sowing maize crop. The accused persons were convicted under Sections 147, 325, 324 read with Section 149 IPC and ordered to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused persons guilty of the offenses based on the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence. The court also extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused persons.
Issues: The issues involved the presence and actions of the accused persons during the land dispute, the injuries sustained by the victims, and the plea of alibi presented by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of witnesses, medical evidence, and the failure of the accused to prove their plea of alibi to establish their guilt. The court also considered the leniency of the sentence and the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused persons under Sections 147, 325, 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The court also affirmed the decision to release the accused on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that one Jeet Ram was owner of 15 bighas of Land situate in village Sadvar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. One and a half bighas out of the said land was purchased by Mollu Ram and he further sold it to Khatri Ram. The remaining half of the land of Jeet Ram was purchased by accused Amar Singh and others about 10 or 12 years before the occurrence. A boundary dispute between Khatri Ram and Amar Singh cropped up because the former suspected that some part of the land purchased by him had been occupied by accused Amar Singh. Said Khatri Ram had even instituted a civil Suit in this regard against Amar Singh and others. In the month of May, 1996 some quarrel also took place between them for which Kanwar Singh (PW-2), Kalyan Singh (PW-13) and Bir Singh (PW-1) were being prosecuted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, on a complaint lodged by accused Amar Singh. On 13.6.1996 around 4 p.m. Bir Singh (PW-1), Kanwar Singh (PW-2) and Kalyan Singh (PW-13) were sowing maize crop in the land purchased by Khatri Ram. At that time accused persons along with a few other persons of the village after forming unlawful assembly with the object of resisting PW-1 and others from sowing the maize crop and causing hurt to them came on the spot. Accused Jagat Singh was armed with a Khukhri (Ext.M-1), accused Amar Singh was armed with iron rod (Ext.M4) and the other accused were carrying lathis (Exts.M-5 to M-8). Accused Jagat Singh inflicted two Khukhri blows on the shoulder of Bir Singh whereas other accused persons inflicted lathi blows on the shoulder of PW-1. Accused Jagat Singh gave Khukhri blow on PW-2 also. PW-13 was also given lathi and khukhri blows by the accused persons. Injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-13 were removed to Civil Hospital Paonta by Mallo Devi (PW-3), wife of Khatri Ram. In the said Hospital PW-2 and PW-3 were medically examined by Dr. Subesh Pandey (PW-8), who issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. P-20 in respect of injuries sustained by PW-2 and Medico Legal Certificate Ext.P-21 in respect of injuries sustained by Kalyan Singh. Kanwar Singh was found to have an incised wound on occipital region, a lacerated wound on his right shoulder joint and a contusion on his back extending from right scapula to 5th Thoracic vertibral region. As per the medical opinion, these injuries were simple in nature having been caused within a probable duration of six hours. However, on a further reference PW-8 opined that the incised wound was serious in nature and dangerous to life and could have been caused with Khukhri Ext. M-1.
3. PW-13 was found to have sustained various injuries, including lacerated wounds contusions and abrasions on different parts of his body with a probable duration of within six hours and were found capable of being caused by danda and iron rod. On x-ray examination of PW-13 Dr. G. Narang (PW-6) opined that front temporal region right side of Kalyan Singh was fractured. Fracture of mid shaft of right humerus was also detected.
4. PW-1 was medically examined by Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal (PW-9). He was found to have sustained two incised wounds of occipital region and on the back of chest and various other lacerated wounds, bruises and contusion as per the medical certificate Ext.P-23 issued by PW-9. The injuries found on his person were found simple and having been caused within a probable duration of six hours. The incised wound on his person was found capable of being caused with Khukhri Ext. M-l
