SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Jaspal – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S Nos. 1801, 1967, 1989, 2315, 2641, 2677, 4385 of 2016
Decided On : 28-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Samridhi Sareen, Ashok Giri, Narinder S. Lucky.
For the Respondent: Iqbal Singh Mann.

The principle of proportionality in determining the quantum of sentence and the emphasis on reformation of the accused as a means of social defense.

Headnote:

FIR No. 122 dated 01.10.2009 - Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Sections 307, 326, 324, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving a dispute between neighbors resulting in injuries. The court considered the nature of injuries, the period of sentence already undergone, and the principle of proportionality in determining the quantum of sentence.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between neighbors resulting in injuries. The appellants appealed against the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 26.04.2016 and 14.07.2017, claiming that the injuries attributed to the complainant/injured persons were simple in nature and the appellants had already undergone a substantial sentence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it was a case of free fight and that every accused-appellant was liable for their individual act. The court also noted that the appellants had reformed and desired to live a normal and peaceful life. The court upheld the judgments of conviction but modified the orders of sentence, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

Issues: The issues involved the nature of injuries, the period of sentence already undergone, and the applicability of Sections 307, 326, 324, and 452 of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principle of proportionality in determining the quantum of sentence and emphasized the reformation of the accused as a means of social defense.

Final Decision: The judgments of conviction were upheld, but the orders of sentence were modified, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. By this common order, 7 appeals, details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as they have been preferred against the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence dated 26.04.2016 and 14.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appellants herein have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 5 years and 3 years respectively in FIR No. 122 dated 01.10.2009, under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 IPC at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar.

2. There are two versions of the same occurrence regarding which one common FIR was registered bearing No. 122 dated 01.10.2009, under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 452 IPC at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar against accused Vinod Kumar alias Billa, Jagdish, Vijay Kumar, Ramesh Kumar alias Vicky, Sunil Kumar, Rakesh Kumar alias Khoti, Darshana, Jugal Kishore, Balbir alias Kala, Gogi, Jaspal and Varinder alias Vicky. However, cross version of the occurrence was presented by Rakesh Kumar alias Khoti implicating accused Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky, Narinder Kumar alias Nindi, Raman Kumar alias Kallu, Deepak Kumar alias Deepu, Davinder Kumar alias Gindri, Chander Bhan and Ashwani Kumar against whom a case under Sections 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC was also registered with the same police station.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Prosecution case, in brief as it emerges from the record is that complainant Ganga Ram made a statement on 01.10.2009 to the effect that he had been engaged in farming on the land of Hardeep Singh Maan, resident of village Deh. On the previous night i.e. 30.09.2009, he was having his meal in his room and his wife Preeto and daughters Asha Rani and Kamaljit Kaur were also present there. At about 10.00 p.m. accused Billa, Jagdish alias Deesha and Dinesh alias Chirri, all three armed with Kirpan, Vicky son of Jugal Kishore armed with base ball bat and Vicky alias Vinod Kumar son of Balbir armed with Datar forcibly entered into his house. At that time electric bulb was on in the courtyard. Bhulla son of Jugal Kishore, Rakesh Kumar alias Mangi alias Khoti son of Jugal Kishore, Jugal Kishore son of Shankar Dass, Darshana wife of Balbir and Baby daughter-in-law of Jugal Kishore, all residents of Quadianwali were throwing brick bats from their house into the courtyard of the house of the complainant. Accused Billa and Chirri exhorted to locate Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky for teaching him a lesson for extending help to the boys of Udhopur. Accused Billa gave a kirpan blow on the person of complainant Ganga Ram which he intercepted by raising his right arm resulting in injury on his right elbow. Jagdish alias Deesha gave kirpan blow on the right side of the head of the complainant, accused Dinesh alias Chirri gave kirpan blow on the right side of back of his head, Vicky gave three base ball bat blows on the person of the complainant which hit him on his left leg, knee and at face resulting in uprooting of his teeth. On hearing hue and cry, his son Lakhwinder Singh alias Lucky came forward to rescue him but the assailants gave him numerous injuries on his head, face and other parts of his body. Accused Billa gave injury to Kamaljit Kaur, daughter of the complainant with kirpan. The assailants also gave injuries to his wife Preeto. Accused Gogi and Vijay Kumar were standing in Goli Chowk and obstructed the way of the complainant party while exhorting that they should not be allowed to escape and that they be killed. When the family of the complainant raised hue and cry, Tulsi, brother of the complainant and other persons came to their rescue and on seeing them, all the accused fled from the spot after leaving their respective weapons.

4. On the basis of statement of the complainant, the investigating machinery swung into motion

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top