Rajbir vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2968

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Rajbir & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S NO. 1519-SB of 2004 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae; For the Appellant
Mr. R.K.Girdhwal, Advocate, for Appellants Nos. 2 and 3.
Appellant No. 1 dead.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Nitish Yadav, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 2 and

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 324, and 34 - Conviction for offences of attempt to murder and causing hurt - Appellants were sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fine - Legal principles regarding the right to private defense were addressed - Compromise between parties noted - Appellants sought leniency based on long-standing peaceful cohabitation post-incident - The conviction of the appellants remained unchallenged in this appeal - Court confirmed validity of conviction but took into account the compromise and time served. (Paras 1-18)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for causing injuries to the complainant and his associates during a land dispute on 27.07.2000. The complainant was attacked with jellies, resulting in serious injuries.

Findings of Court:
Court upheld conviction, emphasizing the support provided by witness testimony. Sentences were reduced to time served due to the compromise and long absence of prior offenses.

Issues: Whether the sentence should be reduced given the compromise deed and the time served by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a lenient sentence was justified based on the prolonged peaceful resolution of disputes among parties involved, despite the initial convictions.

Result: Sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Table of Content
1. dissatisfaction with previous conviction appeals. (Para 1)
2. background of the incident and fir registration. (Para 2 , 3)
3. evidence and statements of witnesses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. arguments for leniency due to compromise. (Para 8 , 9)
5. medical evidence supporting charges laid. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. conviction upheld; reasoning for leniency in sentencing. (Para 15 , 16)
7. final orders and disposition of the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, J.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 10.07.2004 and the order of sentence dated 12.07.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 /34 and 307/34 IPC and were sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 307 /34 IPC along with default stipulation and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 /34 IPC, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution, as may be culled out from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., are that the FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Jagbir, injured on 27.07.2000, after obtaining the opinion regarding his fitness. The complainant stated that there was a plot of Suraj Bhan, Numberdar and Rajbir, Mehtab and Prem sons of Paras Ram in front of their house. Suraj Bhan, Numberdar, Mehtab and Prem had given their shares in the plot to him ten days earlier while Rajbir son of Paras Ram, accused refused to give his share in the plot. On 27.07.2000, he was constructing a wall over his share of plot after leaving vacant the area falling to the share of Rajbir son of Paras Ram and had raised the wall up to the height about 3 feet, in the meantime, at 12.00 p.m, Rajbir and his two sons Balbir and Sudhir, all accused came there duly armed with jellies. The accused started demolishing the wall and when the complainant raised objection, Balbir gave a blow with jelly on the left thigh of Jagbir, complainant, whereas, Sudhir accused inflicted jelly blow three times on the head of Sunil. Rajbir inflicted a blow with the jelly on the stomach of Satpal and the complainant side raised the alarm. Jai Bhagwan son of Jai Narain and Balbir son of Pehlad rushed at the spot and saved the injured from the assailants. All the accused went away with their respective weapons and the injured were shifted to the hospital. The statement of the complainant was got signed from him and after making an endorsement, the formal FIR in the present case was registered.

3. After the registration of the FIR, the medical record regarding the other two injured namely, Sunil and Satpal was also collected. Since Satpal had received serious injuries, so the doctor had referred him to the PGIMS Rohtak on 27.07.2000. The injuries on the person of Satpal were declared to be dangerous to life by the doctor vide his opinion Ex.PF/1 and on this offence under Section 307 was added. On 13.09.2000, all the three accused, namely, Rajbir, Balbir and Sudhir were arrested and one jelly each was recovered from the accused. After completion of the necessary investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by Mahender Singh Inspector and was presented in the Court of learned Area Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned trial Court ordered framing of charges under Sections 307 , 324 and 34 IPC against all the accused and the accused pleaded their innocence and claimed trial.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, PW1 Dr. S.P.S.Bhatia, Constable PW2 Jai Chand, PW3 Constable Naresh Kumar, PW4 Jagbir, PW5 Satpal, PW6 Sunil Kumar, PW7 Balbir, PW8 ASI Ram Avtar, PW9 Mahender Singh, PW10 Head Constable Randhir Singh and PW Jai Bhagwan was given up as unnecessary by the learned pu