Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2862
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Manjit Singh and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1720-SB of 2002.
Decided On : 8 October, 2010
For the Appellant :Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate.
For the Revisionist complainant :Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness statements and medical evidence to establish guilt, and the consideration of attending circumstances and close relation between the parties in determining the sentence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offences - Sections 308, 325, 323 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused appellants for the mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code. It also highlights the reduction of sentence for one of the appellants due to attending circumstances and the close relation between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 308, 325, 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to the complainant and another individual. The prosecution's version of events and the evidence presented were considered by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the mentioned offences based on the statements of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence. The court also considered the attending circumstances and the close relation between the parties in reducing the sentence for one of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the events leading to the injuries caused to the complainant and another individual, the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the attending circumstances and relation between the parties that influenced the court's decision on the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements of prosecution witnesses and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the attending circumstances and close relation between the parties were considered in reducing the sentence for one of the appellants.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants under Sections 308, 325, 323 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld. However, the sentence for one of the appellants was reduced considering the attending circumstances and the close relation between the parties.
Jitendra Chauhan, J. - This judgment shall dispose two cases namely, CRA No. 1720-SB of 2002 and CRR No. 557 of 2003 as the same are directed against the common judgment dated 12.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barriala (hereinafter as "Frial Court). However, the facts are being derived from CRA No. 1720-SB of 2002.
2. Accused appellants, namely, Manjit Singh and Sukhdev Singh, have preferred the appeal in hand against the judgment dated 12.9.2002 delivered by the Trial Court whereby both of them have been convicted for the offence under Section 308, 325, 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as under :-
Manjit Singh To undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section. 308 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
Sukhdev Singh To undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. To undergo R.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code.
3. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. The facts of the present appeal, as set up by the prosecution, finds mention in paras 3 to 5 of the impugned judgment, which read as under :
"3. The facts, in brief, are that Sukhdev Singh son of Gamdoor Singh resident of Sangatpura, was married to Sukhwant Kaur daughter of Kartar Singh at Village Bakhatgarh about seven years before 31.1.1999. Baldev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Sangatpur, brother-in-law, (Sandhu) of said Sukhdev Singh son of Gamdoor Singh, was married to Gurmit Kaur, sister-in-law of Sukhdev Singh complainant. A (1i spz e arose between Sukhdev Singh complainant and his wife Sukhwani Kaur about 6 to 7 months before 31.1.1999. Being enraged Sukhwant Kaur, went to village Bakhatgarh. Sukhdev Singh complainant earlier had come a number of times to village Bakhatgarh for taking back Sukhwant Kazu, but she did not accompany him. On the contrary, his brother-in-law Manjit Singh, Nirmal Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused, treated him shabbily.
4. On 30.1.1999 at about 7.30 PM, Sukhdev Singh complainant along with his brother-in-law (Sandhu) Baldev Singh, Surjit Kaur, sister of Baldev Singh, mediator is arranging his marriage with Sukhwant Kaur, Jagpal Singh son of the elder sister of Baldev Singh and Gurmit Kaur, his sister-in-law, came to the house of Sukhdev Singh Subedar, brother-in-law of the complainant at village Bakhatgarh in Armada Jeep for settling the matter. The jeep was being driven by the driver, whose dame was not known to Sukhdev Singh, complainant. Sukhdev Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant served tea to him and other persons, who accompanied him. They continued talking with each other for a long time. Nirmal Singh, another brother-in-law of the complainant, brought a bottle of liguor and offered the same to him (complainant) and others, bu
