CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE FIR No. 5 dated 11.01.1991 was registered at Police Station, Kharar, under Sections 307/324/323/342/365/34 IPC at the instance of Prem Lata. It was stated in the FIR that the husband of the complainant was posted at Chandigarh. She had three sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar and Rajinder Kumar is youngest of all. It was further stated that Rajinder Kumar had passed matriculation examination and is doing his domestic work. It was further stated that on 11.01.1991 at about 2.30 P.M., Rajinder Kumar had gone at a flour mill for grinding the wheat. When he crossed the primary school, then Chander Kant and Ravi Kant, sons of Ram Chander Pandit who were standing there, have intercepted Rajinder Kumar. They were accompanied by another boy aged about 24/25 years. It has further been stated that Chander Kant was armed with Gandasi whereas Ravi Kant was armed with Kulhari and the other boy was armed with Soti. It was stated that Chander Kant gave a Gandasi blow on Rajinder Kumar and caused injuries on his right temporal region extending upto his neck. Ravi Kant gave a Kulhari blow on Rajinder Kumar and caused injuries on his right foot and right ankle joint and the third man gave injury to Rajinder Kumar with his Soti. Rajvir Singh and Bahadur Singh were attracted to the spot. The accused after causing injuries to Rajinder Singh dragged him from the street inside their Atta Chakki and put down the shutter of the Chakki and locked it from outside and ran away. The motive is that there was a criminal case pending between the parties. On completion of investigation, a challan was submitted against the accused and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar framed charges under Sections 307/342/365 IPC against the appellant. Another co -accused Ravi Kant was declared proclaimed offender.

(2.) MR . Sudhir Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for offences under Sections 307/365 IPC and has only convicted him under Section 342 IPC. It has been further stated by the counsel that acquittal under Sections 307 and 365 Indian Penal Code have not been challenged and the same has attained finality. It has been stated by the counsel that since Prem Lata herself appeared as PW1 and Rajinder Kumar, injured as PW2, the appellant will not be in a position to assail their testimony. The learned Trial Court held that since the medical evidence could not be produced despite various opportunities, therefore, no medical evidence has been proved and furthermore, ingredients of offence under Section 365 IPC are lacking. Mr. Sudhir Sharma has further stated that since the appellant has been only convicted for the offence under Section 342 IPC and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year, the benefit of protracted trial should be extended in his favour. He has further stated that in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 11.01.1991 and about 17 years are going to lapse, therefore, sending the appellant behind the bar may not serve any useful purpose. He further states that the appellant has undergone a few days. Maximum sentence prescribed under Section 342 IPC is one year. The maximum sentence has been awarded by the learned Trial court. Mr. Sudhir Sharma has further stated that in the last 17 years, the appellant has committed no offence and is living his life as a peaceful citizen.