High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rameshwar son of Ratti Ram Caste Balmiki v. The State of Haryana - CRA-S-751-SB-2004  RD-P&H 7165 (14 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.751-SB of 2004
Date of Decision: September 20, 2006
Rameshwar son of Ratti Ram Caste Balmiki resident of Village Ghasauli, Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.
The State of Haryana
BEFORE:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R S MADAN
PRESENT: Mr.RC Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr.SK Bawa, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.SS Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.
R S MADAN, J.
The appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 3-3-2004 whereby he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.9000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act, in default of payment of fine, Criminal Appeal No.751-SB of 2004 2
he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
It was further ordered that out of the amount so recovered 50% of the fine amount be paid as compensation to the injured.
In brief the facts of the case are that on 15-12-1999, a message was received in Police Station, Ganaur regarding the admission of Jaswant Singh, injured upon which ASI Rameshwar alongwith other police officials went to Civil Hospital, Sonepat from where he learnt that injured has been shifted to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Delhi. The said ASI went to the hospital and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding the condition of the injured-Jaswant Singh but he was not found to fit to make a statement. Thereafter, ASI recorded the statement Ex.PC of his brother Gian Chand, who was present with his injured brother in the hospital. According to him, they were four brothers and all of them are agriculturists. One Satish Tyagi, resident of Village Chandauli Pabnera took land of Gram Panchayat on lease from whom they took the same for cultivation of water-melon. On the same day i.e. on 15-12-1999 at about 11.30 A.M. when they were sowing the water-melon in the leased land, the accused Rameshwar came there and he alarmed that in case the complainant party will cultivate the land then he will kill them. His brother Jaswant asked the accused that he should make the payment which they have made to Satish Tyagi. This has caused annoyance to the accused, who immediately took out his country made pistol from the pocket of his trousers and fired upon Jaswant Singh, which hit on his left eye and he fell down. The complainant party chased the accused but in vain. The injured was brought to Community Health Centre, Ganaur and then to Civil Hospital, Ganaur and thereafter he was Criminal Appeal No.751-SB of 2004 3
taken to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Delhi.
During the investigation of the case, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the visual site plan of the place of occurrence, arrested the accused and thereafter accused was interrogated and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, recovered the pistol from the place disclosed by him.
After completing the formalities of investigation, challan against the accused was presented under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Upon appearance of the accused before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Sonepat, the accused was charge-sheeted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution relied upon the statements of 13 PWs, namely, PW1 Dr.PL Bansal, PW2 Jai Bhagwan Patwari, PW3 Gian Chand, PW4 Mool Chand, PW5 UGC Suraj Bhan, PW6 SI Balwant Singh, PW7 HC Ramesh Chander, PW8 ASI Rmaeshwar Dayal, PW9 Satish son of Dal Chand, PW10 Silak Ram Reader to District Magistrate, PW11 Dr.RK Chaudhary, PW12 Dr.Rajiv Ghai, PW13 ASI Dharam Singh and also produced the relevant documents Ex.PA to Ex.PM.
After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which entire version of the prosecution was put to him to which he denied and pleaded innocence.
In defence accused has produced DW1 Raj Kumar, DW2 Ram Kumar and DW3 Daya Nand. According to them, the accused has not Criminal Appeal No.751-SB of 2004 4
caused any injury to Jaswant Singh-injured and he has been falsely implicated.
With the aforesaid evidence appearing on the record, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
The challenge in this appeal is the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he does not challenge the order of conviction on merits.
However on the matterof quantum of sentence, he prays for leniency on the ground that the appellant has already undergone 4 years 11 months and 15 days. In other words, he has already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the Court.. He thus prays that the order of sentence of 10 years be modified into the period of sentence already undergone.
Taking into account that the occurrence in the instant case took place on 15-12-1999 and the accused suffered the agony of trial for a period of 4 and ½ years and thereafter, the sword of Damocles of sentence remain hanging on his head during the pendency of the appeal.
The accused, who has now turned 56 has already suffered an imprisonment of 4 years, 11 months and 15 days up to this date. The ends of justice would be met if the period of sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is modified into a period of sentence already undergone by the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No.751-SB of 2004 5
The amount of fine of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.1,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act respectively has not been paid by the appellant. The appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs.9,000/- under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs.1,000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order and the entire amount of fine i.e. Rs.10,000/- be paid to the injured-Jaswant Singh as compensation as provided under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In case, the appellant fails to deposit the amount of compensation so ordered by this Court, order dated 3-3-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat would stand restored and in that event, the appellant would undergo the entire period of sentence ordered by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
This appeal stands disposed of on the terms indicated above.
( R S MADAN )
September , 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.