Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1274
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, Kuldip Singh, JJ.
Sukhwinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Another - Respondent
Crl. A. No. D-91-DB of 2014 and Crl. A. No. S-2670-SB of 2013
Decided On : 26-02-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate in Crl. A. No. D-91-DB of 2014 and Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate in Crl. A. No. S-2670-SB of 2013
For the Respondents:Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 in Crl. A. No. D-91-DB of 2014 and Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab
The court emphasized the consideration of the period already undergone by the accused in modifying the order of sentence and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant due to limitation.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 326, 324, 452, 34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 34 IPC - The court discussed the conviction and sentence of the accused under the mentioned sections, as well as the modification in the order of sentence based on the period already undergone by the accused. The court also highlighted the enhanced amount of fine and its allocation to the complainant and the State as compensation and litigation expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the complainant was attacked by the accused with various weapons, resulting in injuries. The accused were convicted and sentenced, and subsequent appeals and revisions were filed by both the accused and the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused, with a modification in the order of sentence based on the period already undergone by the accused. The court also dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, citing it as barred by limitation.
Issues: Conviction and sentence of the accused, appeal filed by the complainant, and the limitation of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the period already undergone by the accused, the enhanced amount of fine, and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the complainant due to limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed with a modification in the order of sentence.
This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. D-91-DB of 2014 filed by complainant Sukhwinder Singh, and Criminal Appeal No. S-2670-SB of 2013 filed by accused Dharminder Singh alias Kala. In this case, FIR No. 77 dated 28.6.2000 under Sections 307/326/324/452/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Mukerian, against four accused, namely Malkiat Singh alias Beera; Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi; Munsha Singh; and Dharminder Singh alias Kala. The said FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, in which he alleged that his cousin sister Mohni had come to their village in the holidays from Nagpur. She was teased by accused Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi. On that, hot words were exchanged between complainant Sukhwinder Singh and accused Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi. The matter was reported to Sarpanch of the village, who got the matter settled between the parties. It was further alleged that on 27.6.2000, at about 9 PM, when the complainant was present in his house and door of his house was knocked, upon which he opened the door and found that accused Malkiat Singh alias Beera armed with kirpan, Munsha Singh armed with gandasi, Dharminder Singh alias Kala armed with datar and Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi armed with kirpan were standing in the street. They pushed the door and entered the house of the complainant. Accused Malkiat Singh gave two kirpan blows on the head of the complainant, who fell down and thereafter, accused Munsha Singh gave two gandasi blows on the head of the complainant. Then the complainant was dragged into the street and accused Dharminder Singh gave a datar blow on his head and accused Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi gave two kirpan blows on the head of the complainant. Accused also inflicted hidden injuries on the person of the complainant. When the complainant raised alarm, his father Gian Singh, PWs Gulshan Singh and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur came at the spot, who rescued him. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.
2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against all the four accused and charges for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 34 IPC were framed against them, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. During trial, at the stage of recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Dharminder Singh alias Kala (appellant in Crl. A. No. S-2670-SB) absconded and he was declared proclaimed offender. Statements of the remaining three accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded and they did not lead any evidence in defence. Ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2002, the remaining three accused, namely Malkiat Singh alias Beera; Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi; and Munsha Singh, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of ` 500/- each, under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused Malkiat Singh alias Beera and Munsha Singh were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 324 IPC, and accused Jaswinder Singh alias Sodhi was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the above named three accused were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of ` 100/- each, under Section 452 read with Section 34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, all the three accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC.
4. Feeling aggrieved against their conviction and sentence vide the aforesaid judgment and order, the above named three accused filed Crl. A. No. 1628-SB of 2002. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 2476
