PIARE LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dtd. 5/3/2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before the learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 307, 324, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sec. 34 of IPC and the order dtd. 7/3/2008, vide which they were sentenced to undergo Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 324 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days each, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 each for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each for the commisision of an offence punishable under Sec. 506 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 307, 324, 323 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant Amar Singh (PW1) was laying the floor of his courtyard. He had engaged the mason and the labourers for this purpose. Piare Lal (accused) climbed on the roof of his uncle's house and told the informant to stop the work. He (Piare Lal) said that he would not allow the water of the informant's courtyard to pass through his land. The informant said that he had constructed the retaining wall on his land and he would discharge the water from the existing drain. Piare Lal (accused) said that he would not allow the water to be discharged from the existing drain. The accused Piare Lal went to his home and sent his wife Trishana Devi with an iron bar. She started damaging the retaining wall with the iron bar. The informant went near the retaining wall and requested Trishana Devi not to damage the retaining wall. Rajinder Singh and his wife Sumiti Devi also came to the spot. Piare Lal was armed with an axe and Rajinder Singh was armed with a stick. Trishana Devi inflicted a 'Jhabbal' (iron bar) blow on the informant's head. Rajinder Singh took the iron bar from his mother and inflicted blows with the iron bar. Sumiti Devi also gave kicks and fist blows to complainant's son Narinder Singh. Narinder Singh sustained a bleeding injury from an iron bar. Balbir Singh and Roshan Lal (PW3) also reached the spot and rescued the informant and his son from the accused. The accused threatened to kill the informant party. The matter was reported to the police. The statement of Amar Singh (Ex-PA) was recorded which was sent to the police station where FIR (Ex-PW11/A) was registered. Sher Singh (PW11) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and took the photographs (Ex-PW11/B & Ex-PW11/C), and negatives (Ex-PW11/D & Ex-PW11/E). He prepared the site plan (Ex-PW11/F) at the instance of Roshan Lal and Balbir Singh. He seized the underwear (Ex-P5) and undervest (Baniyan) (Ex-P4) of Amar Singh and Shirt (Ex-P6) and Pajama (Ex-P7) of Narinder Singh vide memo (Ex-PW2/A). He seized the axe (Ex-P3), iron bar (ExP1) and stick (Ex-P2) vide memo (Ex-PW3/A). He prepared the sketch of the axe (Ex-PW11/G). An application was filed for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Kuldeep Jaswal (PW-5) examined Amar Singh and he found multiple injuries. He referred Amar Singh to the radiologist. Dr. M.R. Verma (PW-4) conducted the x-rays of Amar Singh and found a fracture of the parietal bone scalp left side. He issued a report (Ex-PW4/A). Dr. Kuldeep Jaswal (PW-5) found the nature of the injuries grievous which could be endangering human life due to excessive bleeding. The injuries were caused by the sharp and blunt-edged weapon. He issued the MLC (Ex-PW5/A). He also examined Narinder Singh and found multiple injuries on his person. He advised an x-ray. An x-ray was taken under the supervision of Dr. M.R. Verma (PW-4) but no fracture was detected. The nature of the injury was stated to be simple which could have been caused by the sharp and blunt-edged weapon within one hour of examination. He issued MLC (Ex-PW5/B). The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh who committed it for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge assigned the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan who charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 307, 324, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.