Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
Didar Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Others - Respondents
CRA-S-957-SB-2004 (O&M) and CRR-1275-2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-05-2019
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 - The court discussed the applicability of section 307 IPC, the motive for the crime, the injuries suffered by the accused, and the principle of benefit of doubt. The court also examined the evidence to establish the intention and knowledge of the accused, and the compensation for the injuries caused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused attacked the complainant party with weapons in a dispute related to the election for the post of Sarpanch, resulting in serious injuries to the complainants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were guilty of the charges and upheld their conviction, while modifying their sentences based on the period already undergone and releasing one of the accused on probation.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of section 307 IPC, the motive for the crime, the injuries suffered by the accused, and the compensation claimed by the injured parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries inflicted on the complainants were dangerous to life and were caused with the intention of causing harm, establishing the offence under section 307 IPC. The court also considered the period of custody undergone by the accused and the absence of complaints during the suspension of their sentence.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was maintained, and their sentences were modified. One appellant was released on probation, and the injured parties were awarded compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Mittal, J.
This judgment shall decide aforementioned appeal and revision petition as both are directed against the same judgment of conviction dated 17.4.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.4.2004, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 13.5.2000 Hari Singh son of Tara Singh, his brother Joginder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and nephew Jaspal Singh son of Joginder Singh were sitting in the fields of Joginder Singh. Their servants Goga Masih and Jeeta Masih were also present. At about 7.00 p.m., Joginder Singh sent his servants Goga Masih and Jeeta Masih to Kulwant Singh for bringing the Patta (belt) of the engine from the fields of Didar Singh. After some time Goga Masih came running and told them that Didar Singh and his son Rupinder Singh had forcibly detained Jeeta Masih and were beating him. On hearing this, Joginder Singh and his son Jaspal Singh hurriedly went to the fields of Didar Singh, where they saw Didar Singh and Rupinder Singh beating up Jeeta Masih whereas other accused Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was standing with a datar in his hand and Joginder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was armed with a gandasi. On being asked why they were beating Jeeta Masih, Didar Singh raised a lalkara that these people be taught a lesson for opposing him in Sarpanch election. He caught hold of a datar and caused injuries to Joginder Singh. Rupinder Singh also caused injuries to him with a gandasi. Bikramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh caused an injury on Jaspal Singh with a datar then Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh also caused injuries on Jaspal Singh with a datar. Rupinder Singh also caused injuries with gandasi on Jaspal Singh. This incident was witnessed by Jeeta Masih and Hari Singh. On hearing the noise, Sarpanch Sukhdev Singh also reached at the spot and thereafter, accused persons ran away. The injured were then admitted to hospital and their medico legal examination was done.
3. FIR No. 61 dated 14.5.2000, was registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, under sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (for short "IPC") regarding the aforementioned incident. Five persons were named as accused. During the course of the trial accused Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh passed away on 23.3.2004 resulting in abatement of proceedings against him. On conclusion of the trial, the remaining four accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| Name of the accused | Section of IPC | RI | Fine | I/D of payment of fine |
| Didar Singh | 148 307 307 r/w 149 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 | 01 year 07 years 02 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs. 100/- Rs. 5000/- Rs. 1000/- Rs. 100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 06 months RI for 01 month RI for 15 days |
| Bikramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh | 148 307 r/w 149 307 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 323 r/w 149 | 01 year 02 years 05 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs. 100/- Rs. 1000/- Rs. 5000/- Rs. 100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 01 month RI for 06 months RI for 15 days |
| Joginder Singh | 148 307 r/w 149 307 r/w 149 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 | 01 year 02 years 02 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs. 100/- Rs. 1000/- Rs. 1000/- Rs. 100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 01 month RI for 01 month RI for 15 days |
4. Learned counsel for the appellants informed that Rupinder Singh son of Didar Singh had also passed away during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal filed by him had abated vide order dated 20.4.2017.
5. On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place in the field of Didar Singh appellant No. 1. He also received injuries in the incident
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
