Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Sewa Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-184 & 185 of 2019
Decided On : 13-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conversion of the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part-I/149 IPC, based on the nature of the attack and the resulting injuries.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 148, 452, 302, 323, 506 read with Section 149 IPC - The court found the appellants guilty of attacking the complainant party with gandasa, jellies, and lathis, resulting in fatal injuries to the victim. The court converted the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part-I/149 IPC, while upholding the conviction and sentence under other relevant sections.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 302, 323, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution's case was that the appellants attacked the complainant party with weapons, resulting in fatal injuries to the victim. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses to support its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of attacking the complainant party with gandasa, jellies, and lathis, resulting in fatal injuries to the victim. The court converted the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part-I/149 IPC, while upholding the conviction and sentence under other relevant sections.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the attack, the injuries sustained by the victim and the accused, and the applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the case fell within the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC, considering the nature of the attack and the resulting injuries. The court also noted discrepancies in the statements of witnesses regarding injuries sustained by the accused, which influenced the decision.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, converting the conviction under Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part-I/149 IPC, while upholding the conviction and sentence under other relevant sections. The State of Haryana was directed to produce the appellants before the court for the hearing on the quantum of sentence under Section 304 Part-I/149 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, i.e. CRA-D-184 of 2019 and CRA-D-185 of 2019, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2019, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2015/2018 dated 04.09.2015/03.10.2018, whereby appellants Sewa Singh, Balram, Hawa Singh, Kulbir, Naresh and Sachin were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 302, 323, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 ½ years each under Section 302/149 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 452/149 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 506/149 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323/149 IPC. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 07/08.05.2015, a telephonic message was received in the Control Room informing that Hari Bilas and Puran Singh were admitted in General Hospital, after receiving injuries in a fight. ASI Dharambir Singh went to the hospital. Puran Singh was declared fit to make statement. His statement was recorded. He disclosed that on 06.05.2015, he and his brother Hari Bilas had a tiff with Sewa Singh. Sewa Singh was armed with gandasa. Hawa Singh and Balram armed with Jellies came to their house. During this time, Kulbir, Naresh and Sachin also reached with their lathis threatening them. Sewa Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Hari Bilas, his cousin. Kulbir gave a lathi blow. When he tried to intervene, Kulbir and Naresh also attacked him with lathi and caused injuries on various parts of his body. They were rescued by Sukhdev and Deshu, their neighbours. Thereafter, he and his brother were admitted in General Hospital, Hisar. Since Hari Bilas received serious injuries, he was shifted to Sapra Hospital. They had also caused injuries in self defence to Sewa Singh and Hawa Singh. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. Hari Bilas died in PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, offence under Section 302 IPC was inserted. Inquest report was prepared. Accused Naresh and Sachin were found innocent. They were kept in column No.2 of the challan. However, they were later on summoned to face trial along with remaining accused on the basis of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The recovery of the weapons of offence was effected. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
4. The prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses in support of its case. The appellants were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. They also examined eleven witnesses in their defence.
5. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed here- in-above. Hence, these appeals.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against their clients. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order of the learned Court below.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
8. PW.1 Dr. Satish Kuma
