Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMARJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab - CRA-688-SB-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 10727 (17 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRL.A.No.688-SB of 2003

DATE OF ORDER:

Amarjit Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent(s)

CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL .*.*.*.

Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate.

Mr. Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri, AAG, Punjab.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

This is an appeal against judgment dated 22.2.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala whereby accused- appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307/324 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for two months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for two months.

Prosecution case against the accused-appellant is that Paramjit Kaur sister of Amarjit Singh accused was married to Kuljit Singh son of Sameer Singh and that Kuljit Singh had gone abroad. Then that sister had left the house of in-laws on 21.3.2002 when she was threatened. Then on 29.3.2002, Amarjit Singh accused-appellant went to the house of Samir CRL.A.No.688-SB of 2003 #2#

Singh. The complainant Samir Singh offered dinner to him and put his bed in the verandah where accused went to sleep but then in the mid-night accused knocked at the door of the room of Samir Singh, which was opened by wife of Samir Singh. Then Amarjit Singh told her that he wanted to go to bath room. Amarjit Singh went to the bath room and came to the room of the complainant, where complainant Samir Singh was lying on the bed. All of a sudden, he started inflicting blows with kirch on Samir Singh. Blow was given on the left side of the neck. Samir Singh caught hold of the accused from his wrist and the wife of the complainant also came there.

Accused then gave fist blow near the ear of the complainant Samir Singh.

He further gave kirch blow near his right armpit and one blow just below the armpit. When alarm was raised then Bakshish Singh brother of the complainant was attracted, who rescued the complainant Samir Singh from the accused. Accused had run away from the spot. Samir Singh was shifted to Civil Hospital, Bholath from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. He was medically examined. On his statement, case was initially registered for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Then surgical opinion was given by the Surgeon. Accused faced trial for the offence under Sections 307/324 IPC. Case was found to be proved. Accused- appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

Counsel for the accused-appellant had argued that when sister of the accused had already left on 21.3.2002 then there was no occasion for the accused to go to the house of her in-laws and then be entertained by in- laws with dinner and stay for the night. It was argued that there was no independent corroboration in this case and that so called independent witness Bakshish Singh had not been examined. It was argued that CRL.A.No.688-SB of 2003 #3#

admittedly accused is handicapped and he could not possibly cause injuries while alone in the house of Samir Singh. It was argued that he has just been falsely named to take revenge. It was further argued that in fact family of the accused had arranged Rs.10,00,000/- for sending Kuljit Singh abroad and in stead of treating the sister of the accused properly, she was treated badly and turned out and then false case had been got registered.

Paramjit Kaur, who happens to be wife of Kuljit Singh had appeared as DW1 and stated that there was money dispute and her parents had spent Rs.10,00,000/- in sending Kuljit Singh abroad and the case was got registered due to the money dispute.

In this case, Samir Singh injured appeared as PW1, Nishan Kaur wife of Samir Singh as PW2. Occurrence is stated to have taken place in the mid-night of 29.3.2002. Samir Singh was examined in P.H.C Bholath in the morning hour on 30.3.2002. Following injuries had been found on his person:

1. An incised wound 3cmx cm oblique in direction over the right axilla 3 cm below the apes of axilla.

Wound bleeded on examination. Wound not probed.

2. An incised wound 2 cm x cm on the back of chest right side. 22 cm below the top of right shoulder.

Oblique in direction and bleeded on examination.

Wound not probed.

3. An incised wound 3.2 cm x 3 /4 cm oblique in direction on the front of chest on left side of 2 cm below the jugular note. Wound bleeded on examination.

Wound not probed.

Weapon used was sharp and probable duration was within 6 to 8 hours. Then patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. PW4 CRL.A.No.688-SB of 2003 #4#

Doctor Gurbachan Singh had given treatment and then declared injury No.1 as dangerous to life, which was on the left side of the chest whereas injuries No.2 & 3 were declared simple.

Even if there had been disputes and Paramjit Kaur wife of Kuljit Singh had left the house of in-laws on 21.3.2002 still it will not be improbable that accused comes to the house of in-laws of the sister to settle the matter and is entertained with dinner or stays there. There would be no cause for Samir Singh or his wife to depose falsely as against the present accused. The statement of witnesses are corroborated by the medical evidence. Bakshish Singh stated to be independent witness is brother of Samir Singh. Even if he was produced, the objection would have been the same that he is brother of the injured. In spite of lengthy cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 no infirmity has come.

Under these circumstances, I find that accused-appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court.

Lastly counsel for the accused-appellant had prayed that lenient view be taken.

Taking into account the nature of the injuries, I find that the sentence of seven years for the offence under Section 307 IPC is on the higher side. Same is reduced to six years whereas that of fine is maintained.

With this modification in sentence, appeal stands dismissed.

November 22, 2006 ( M.M. AGGARWAL )

manoj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.