K. S. LODHA, J. - (1.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanuman-garh, by his judgment dated 30th June, 1983 convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows :- (1) Nadar Singh, (2) Kashmir Singh (3) Jangir Singh U/s 302/34, I. P. C. Imprisonment for life U/s 364, I. P. C. Sentenced to 7 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine six months' R. I. U/s 201, I. P. C. Sentenced to 3 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine 3 months' R. I. (4) Satnam Singh U/s 364, I. P. C. Sentenced to 3 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default six months' R. I. U/s 336, I. P. C. Sentenced to one month's R. I U/s 27, Arms Act Sentenced to 2 years' R. I.
(2.) AGGRIEVED of these convictions and sentences, these appellants have come up in appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned P. P. as also the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record. So far as the convictions of the appellants Nadar Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jangir Singh, under sections 364 and 201 I. P. C. are concerned and those of Satnam Singh under section 364, 336 I. P. C. and 27 Arms Act are concerned, they have not been challenged before us. However, so far as Satnam Singh is concerned, the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that he has been on bail and had served out almost 1-1/2 year's R. I. therefore, he need not be sent back to jail but his substantive sentences may be reduced to that already undergone. So far as the other appellants are concerned, his contention is that accepting the prosecution story as such, these appellants could not have been convicted under section 302/34, I. P. C. and their case shall fall under a lesser offence. In view of the limited contention raised before us, we may briefly state the prosecution story. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24. 11. 1981, the deceased Nanak Singh had got some illicit liquor recovered from the possession of Ka!a Singh s/o Nadar Singh accused. After the police party had gone away after affecting the recovery, Nand Singh, Nanak Singh, Maluka Singh and Balbir Singh, were sitting in the 'kotha' of Balbir Singh and gossiping, at about 10 30 P. M. Nanak Singh had gone out to ease himself and there the accused persons. Nadar Singh, Satnam Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jangir Singh accompanied by four other persons, who were not then named in the first information report but later were named as Prittam Singh, Amar Singh and another Kashmir Singh s/o Kartar Singh and Bachan Singh had belaboured Nanak Singh and had carried him away. On hearing the hue and cry Nand Singh, Maluka Singh, Balbir Singh etc. came out of kotha and went in pursuit of the accused persons but Satnamsingh, who was holding a pistol, fired at them and threatened them not to pursue the accused persons. These witnesses, however, were not hit by the pistol fire. The accused persons are said to have taken the deceased Nanak Singh upto the house of Rati Ram upto which these witnesses except Maluka Singh and one more witness Surayan Singh, who joined later, followed them but being challenged by Satnam Singh by firing the pistol at them, they did not followed the accused persons further and they saw that Nanak Singh was further being carried towards the 'bhatta' out side the village. Maluka Singh, of course, followed them stealthily upto some distance. Then Nand Singh came and informed Dilawar Singh father of Nanak Singh of this incident and Dilawar Singh lodged a report before the police. The accused Nadar Singh was arrested on 26. 11. 1981 and in pursuance of the information given by him on that very day, the dead body of Nanak Singh was recovered. The other accused appellants were later arrested on 24. 12. 1981. The post-mortem examination of the deceased Nanak Singh was carried out by Dr. Narendra Singh, P. W. 1 and he found the following injuries on his person:- "1. Abrasion 3/4"x1/8" Rt. shoulder post. 2. Bruise 2"x1/4" back in middle 3. Bruise 3/4"x1/4" back in middle 4. Bruise 5"x2" Lt. side of back lumber 5. Bruise with abrasion 3/4"x1/2" Rt. gluteal area 6. Abrasion 1/4"1/4" Rt. gluteal area 7. Bruise present around the anal opening. Anal opening wide open 3/4 "x1/2" Blood stains present around anal opening. 8. Incised wound 1/2"x1/8"x1/4" lat. side of Rt. eye. 9. Incised wound 1/2"x1/8"x1/4" chin Rt. side. 10. Abrasion 3/4"x1" Rt. cheek area 11. Abrasion 2"x1" Rt. cheek area 12. Abrasion l"x1/2" in front of Rt. ear. 13. Abrasion 1/2"x1/4" Lt. cheek 14. Abrasion 1/2"x1/4" Lt. cheek 15. Abrasion 1-1/2"x 1/2" in front of Lt. ear 16. Abrasion 1/2"x1/2" near Lt. iliac crest. 17. Abrasion 3/4"x 3/4" Lt. wrist area ant. 18. Abrasion 1"x1/2" Lt. wrist area post. 19. Abrasion 1/2" wide around Rt. wrist area (Both wrists were tied with a rope.) 20. Bruise 3"'x3/8" Rt. side of neck middle multiple bruises & abrasion size ranging from 1/8"1/8" to 4/4"x1/4" present on neck in front and lateral sides. " According to the doctor, the cause of death was strangulation. He, when examined in court, stated that no injury except injury no. 20 of injuries on the body of Nanak Singh were sufficient, individually or collectively to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature.
(3.) OUT of the accused persons, accused Nadar Singh was having a lathi, Satnam Singh had a pistol and a 'saila', Kashmir Singh s/o Mala Singh had a lathi according to some witnesses and 'gandasa' according to some others, so also is the case of Jangir Singh. After usual investigation, the four appellants along with four other accused named above were challaned and committed and on trial these four appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, whereas, Pritam Singh, Amar Singh, Kashmir Singh s/o Kartar Singh and Bachan Singh were acquitted of all the charges. Now only two questions arise for our consideration. So far as the accused Satnam Singh is concerned, he has been sentenced to three years' R. I. under sec. 364, I. P. C. and 2 years R. I. u/s 27 Arms. Act. His conviction is not challenged before us and only a prayer for reduction of the sentence had been made. He had been arrested on 24. 12. 1981 but was later released on bail by this Court on 3. 8. 83 and has thus undergone about 1-1/2 years R. I. The incident is of the year 1981. More than 8-1/2 years have already passed, therefore, at this stage we do not think it proper or necessary to send him back to jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence specially when although he is said to be armed with a pistol and saila, he did not cause any injury either to the deceased or to any of the witnesses with these weapons. Dr. Narendra Singh had specifically stated that none of the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by a saila. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, his substantive sentence may be reduced to that already undergone by him and in lieu of reduction a suitable fine may be further imposed. ;