Baljinder Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab

Baljinder Singh @ Bittu ...Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

O R D E R

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 5th October,

2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh whereby the appellant has been convicted and

1

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

-

four years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for an offence

punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and

rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of

Rs.2,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 324

IPC.

3. When the special leave petition came up for admission

on 11th April, 2011 notice to the respondent was issued by

this Court only on the question of sentence awarded to the

appellant. We have, accordingly heard learned counsel for

the parties on the quantum of sentence awarded to the

appellant and perused the record.

4. The incident in question is said to have taken place as

early as in July, 1994. The genesis of the occurrence has no

element of premeditation or other criminal overtones. It

arose out of what was according to the prosecution an

unintended and innocuous straying of the complainant's

cart into the paddy field of Natha Singh, father of

Bhupinder Singh and Baljinder Singh, the appellant. The

2

brothers were enraged by what they thought was a

trespass into the field owned by them and their father. -

They caught hold of and beat Kulwinder Singh the

complainant, owner of the cart who received two knife

blows on the front of his right chest and a blow in the

scapular region. The co-accused Bhupinder Singh was also

alleged to have given a fist blow at the back of Kulwinder

Singh. The incident was witnessed by Bachan Singh PW-2

and Sukhchain Singh who intervened to prevent any further

injury to any one of them. At the trial the prosecution

adduced evidence that comprised among others the

depositions of Kulwinder Singh, PW-1, Bachan Singh, PW 2

and Dr. K.K. Sharma, PW-3. Relying upon the deposition of

the said witnesses, the trial Court found both the accused

guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and

sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of four year and two years apart from payment

of fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively for

offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC

respectively. In so far as Bhupinder Singh was concerned,

the trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for

3

a period of three years under Section 326 read with Section

34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under -

Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC apart from payment

of Rs.2,000/- for the former and Rs.1,000/- for the later

offence.

5. The High court on an appeal filed by the accused,

acquitted Bhupinder Singh giving him the benefit of doubt

but maintained the sentence awarded to the appellant. The

High Court found that while Dr. Rattanjit Singh, DW-1 had

deposed and certified the appellant having suffered three

injuries, one of which sustained on the left side of the

forehead was reported to be a grievous injury, in the

absence of any x-ray examination and in the absence of

any analysis of the cut sustained by the appellant, the

injury had to be treated to be a superficial one only. The

fact that the incident had resulted in injuries to both the

parties is all the same evident from the material on record.

Superadded to that is the fact that incident took place

because of a sudden fight. The nature of the injuries

inflicted, the absence of any criminal antecedents of the

4

accused appellant, and the period that has elapsed since

the occurrence, all call for a suitable alteration in the -

sentence awarded to the appellant. We are further of the

opinion that while the sentence could be reduced from four

years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous

imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC, the

amount of fine could be increased from Rs.5,000/- to

Rs.50,000/-. The sentence and fine under Section 324 IPC

will, however, remain unaltered. Having regard to the

nature of the injuries sustained by Kulwinder Singh the

medical expenses that he would have incurred in

connection with the treatment of those injuries, we consider

it just and proper to award Rs.50,000/- out of the fine

amount as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to

Kulwinder Singh the victim of the assault. The above

modification would in our view serve the ends of justice.

5. In the result, we allow this appeal but only in part and

to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant

under Section 326 IPC shall stand reduced from four years

rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment

5

with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In the event of default in

payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer rigorous -

imprisonment for a further period for one year. The

sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to the

appellant under Section 324 is, however, maintained. We

further direct that in case the fine amount is recovered

from the appellant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to

Kulwinder Singh as compensation under Section 357 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

...................................J.

(CYRIAC JOSEPH)

...................................J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

September 28, 2011

6