Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AZIK MASIH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Azik Masih v. State of Punjab - CRA-69-1993 [2006] RD-P&H 231 (20 January 2006)

Crl.A.No.69-SB of 1993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION : 4.1.2006

Azik Masih

.....APPELLANT

Vs.

State of Punjab

....RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Present : Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate

Mr. G.S.Bhandari, DAG, Punjab

....

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.

This appeal has been preferred against conviction of the appellant under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month.

FIR was registered on the statement of David Masih to the effect that on 15.8.1989 at 9/10 a.m., he was taking tea along with Unis and Ravi Mohan. Ravi Mohan was attacked by the appellant Azik Masih along with Chaman Lal. The appellant was having a dagger. ASI Harbans Singh PW6, on receiving message from the hospital, reached, CMC Hospital, Ludhiana.

Since the injured was not fit to make a statement, statement of David Masih was recorded and thereafter at 5 p.m. Statement of Ravi Mohan under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.

Dr. Umesh Suna PW7 examined the injured and found the following injuries :-

"1. There was sucking wound in the left side of the chest in the lateral aspect size 4 cm x 2 cm and the injury was actively bleeding. The chest was opened and operation was done and the following was my finding about the injury :

1. Hameorthorax 1.5 Litre

2. Tear in the pericardium left side size 2 cm long

3. Cardiac standstill

4. Tear in the mycardium

5. Cardiac temponade." Injury No.1 was declared as dangerous to live. After investigation the appellant along with Chaman Lal were challaned.

The prosecution mainly relied upon evidence of Ravi Mohan PW3 and David Masih PW2. Buta Mall PW4 was examined to prove motive and Dr.Umesh Suna PW7 was examined to prove the injuries. Ex.P1 is the weapon of offence which was recovered in pursuance of statement Ex.PF.

PW6 ASI Harbans Singh is the Investigating Officer. Motive alleged is that the appellant's sister had love affair with injured Ravi Mohan but the injured refused to marry sister of the appellant.

In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused alleged false implication.

The trial court gave benefit of doubt to Chaman Lal as there was no evidence of his participation in the alleged offence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In view of direct evidence of the injured witness PW3 Ravi Mohan and eye witness PW2 David Masih, medical evidence of PW7 Dr.Umesh Suna, case of the prosecution stands fully proved against the appellant.

Counsel for the appellant is unable to give any reason as to why the said evidence should be rejected. Conviction of the appellant is thus affirmed.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place more than 16 years ago and the appellant is not a previous convict. He has been facing the proceedings for the last 16 years and he has already remained in custody for about 4 months - two months during trial and two months after conviction. In these circumstances his further custody to undergo remaining sentence is not called for.

I have heard counsel for the State also.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in my view ends of justice will be met if substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to RI for one year subject to the condition that the appellant will pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the victim. The compensation may be deposited in the trial court within six months from today. If the compensation is not deposited, the original sentence will stand.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

4.1.2006 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

JUDGE

dss


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.