STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAHANGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUT of the six accused who were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, for offences under sections 148, 307/149, Indian Penal Code, only two of them, namely, Jahangir Singh and Shamsher Singh respondents were found guilty under Section 307 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for the period of confinement already undergone by them. Each of the two respondents was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The present Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana, with the prayer that the sentence imposed upon the two respondents may be suitably enhanced.

(2.) IN the absence of any appeal by the two respondents against their conviction and sentence as aforesaid, it would suffice to notice the prosecution allegations, in brief. On February 27, 1983, at about 8.30 a.m., Kashmir Singh (PW-1) accompanied by Joginder Singh (PW-5), Anup Singh (PW-6) and Ajmer Singh had gone to the village Gurdwara to bring Guru Granth Sahib for the purpose of holding an Akhand Path at the house of Kashmir Singh (PW-1) on the occasion of his marriage which was scheduled to be soleminsed on March 2, 1983. Balwinder Singh (PW-2) brother of Kashmir Singh PW was sent to call Mohinder Singh (PW-3) from his house. The four PWs mentioned above reached the Gurdwara and were waiting for Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh PWs. The house of Mohinder Singh PW was visible from the place where the other PWs were standing in the street in front of the Gurdwara. As soon as Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh PWs emerged from their house, Jahangir Singh and Shamsher Singh respondents opened fire with their respective guns. The gun-shot hit Balwinder Singh on his right thigh. Mohinder Singh PW, also received a gun shot injury on his hand, as also on a seru wooden leg of cot) which he was carrying in his hand at that time. Balwinder Singh, though injured, managed to crawl into his house. The PWs asked the respondents not to fire, but it is alleged that they gave a lalkara that the remaining PWs should also be finished. In fact, the allegation is that Shamsher Singh respondent re-loaded his gun. The PWs however, took shelter behind the wall. A number of persons from the village collected at the soot and then the accused went away with their respective weapons.

(3.) THE solitary submission on behalf of the Appellant State made by its learned counsel is that in view of the nature of the injuries caused by the respondents, they should have been subjected to a severer punishment. However, a perusal of the judgment would show that during the trial, both the parties entered into a compromise which was produced before the Court. The compromise (Exhibit C1) is available on the record. The learned trial Court has observed in its judgment that the injured PWs who were present in the Court, had admitted the correctness of the compromise. Relying upon a dictum enunciated in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P. 1973 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 870 the trial Court felt that the ends of justice would be met by not sending the two respondents to jail. The discretion so exercised by the trial Court is in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned authority, except that a higher amount could have been imposed by way of fine, which would have gone to the injured PWs by way of compensation for their injuries. It appeals, however, that the parties are quite content with the verdict of the trial Court and in such a situation, it will not serve any useful purpose to enhance the fine.