Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar @ Teeta vs State Of Punjab on 3 October, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -1-
-------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
104+244 CRM-23794-2024 & 23795-2024,
CRM-38845-2023 in/and
CRA-D-658-DB-2018
Date of decision : 03.10.2024
Ashwani Kumar @ Teeta
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
CRM-23795-2024
This application is for fixing an actual date of hearing of the main
appeal.
2. Issue notice in the application to the non-applicant/respondent.
3. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Senior DAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate has put in appearance on
behalf of the complainant.
5. Heard.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -2-
——-
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and with
the consent of the parties, the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself.
Main appeal
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Amritsar, in case FIR No.158 dated 01.08.2010, registered at Police Station E.
Division, Amritsar and sentenced as under:-
Offence Sentenced to Fine In default of
R.I. payment of fine
307 IPC Life Rs.10,000/- 06 months RI
imprisonment
326 IPC 07 years Rs.10,000/- 03 months RI
325 IPC 03 years Rs.5,000/- 02 months RI
324 IPC 02 years Rs.5,000/- 01 month RI
323 IPC 01 years Rs.5,000/- 01 month RI
379-B(2) IPC 10 years Rs.10,000/- 03 months RI
506 IPC 03 months Rs.1,000/- 15 days RI
341 IPC 06 months Rs.1,000/- 15 days RI
The trial Court had ordered that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that when the complainant was present
in his house on 12.08.2016 at around 6.00 pm, he was attacked by the appellant
and other accused. The appellant had raised lalkara and inflicted injuries with a
datar (sharped edge weapon) on the front side of the head of the complainant.
Co-accused had also given several injuries on the person of the complainant with
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -3-
——-
datar. The appellant is also stated to have taken away mobile phone, Rs.1 lac and
02 tola gold chain from the complainant after he had fallen to the ground. The
motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a dispute between the complainant
and the appellant who are neighbours with regard to encroachment which led to
civil litigation.
3. The complainant while deposing as PW-1 had proved the prosecution
case which was corroborated by PW-2 Smt. Manisha and PW-3 Jatin Sareen. They
had stated that they were present at the time of occurrence and PW-5 Dr. Shekhar
Chumber had examined the complainant and found 34 injuries on his person out of
which 27 injuries were declared grievous to life.
4. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had taken the
defence that no such occurrence had taken place and the complainant had
misbehaved with the wife of the appellant and got registered a false case against
the appellant. He also stated that the injuries were exaggerated and the
complainant being a Doctor had manipulated the report. He had also examined
Dr. Deep Rattan as DW-1 in his support, who had stated that the appellant had also
received an injury i.e. stitched wound of size 5 cm with four sutures intact present
vertically on left side of forehead, 5 cm about medial margin of left eyebrow,
wound is linear.
5. On appreciation of evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge
convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.04.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was a case of
simpliciter quarrel between the neighbours. There was a delay of 08 days in
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -4-
——-
conducting the medical examination. Although the MLR indicates that there were
34 injuries out of which 07 injuries were declared grievous in nature and the
complainant being a BAMS Doctor had manipulated the medical evidence with the
connivance of other Doctors in his favour. The complainant is hale and hearty and
is able to perform his duties in a normal manner. He is walking without any
assistance. In the alternative, he submits that the appellant, who is over 60 years of
age, has undergone an actual sentence of 07 years, 10 months & 12 days and has
not availed any concession of parole or furlough, therefore, the sentence of the
appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Learned State counsel, however, submits that in view of serious
allegations and the manner of attack along with the previous history wherein the
appellant had assaulted the complainant on 03 occasions which led to his
conviction, no leniency should be shown and there is no illegality in the order of
conviction.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the
complainant had suffered serious injuries and even at present, he is not able to
perform his duties and has suffered permanent disability of his hands. The conduct
of the appellant is such whereby he had repeatedly assaulted the complainant,
resulting in total 04 convictions, therefore, the instant order of conviction and the
sentence does not warrant any interference in appeal. He also submits that the
complainant had earlier gone to Guru Nanak Dev University & Hospital, Amritsar
from where he was referred to Amandeep Hospital (private hospital) due to non-
availability of neurosurgeon. Therefore, the delay in conducting the medical
examination is fully explained.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -5-
——-
9. Heard.
10. It is manifest that the occurrence had taken place due to altercation
between the appellant and the complainant on account of encroachment as they
were next door neighbours. The appellant along with other accused is stated to
have caused injuries on the person of the victim/complainant with datar. There is
no doubt that the ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. The
complainant has indeed suffered several injuries on his person which included
multiple fractures. The complainant in his testimony as PW-1 had reiterated the
version in the FIR and he was cross-examined at length but there was no material
contradiction. His version had been corroborated by PW-2 Smt. Manisha (wife of
the complainant) and PW-3 Jatin Sareen, who are the eye-witnesses.
11. PW-2 Manisha had witnessed the attack on the complainant and had
stated that the complainant was taken to Guru Nanak Dev University & Hospital,
Amritsar along with one passer-by, namely, Jatin Sareen (who was examined as
PW-3) along with other police officials.
12. PW-3 Jatin Sareen had also stated that he had witnessed the attack on
the complainant and had also named other accused including the son and brother
of the appellant, who were later declared as proclaimed offender. He had also
identified the appellant in Court.
13. The injuries were duly reflected in the MLR which was proved by
PW-5 Dr. Shekhar Chumber, who had medico-legally examined the complainant
and found 34 injuries on his person out of which 27 injuries were declared
grievous to life.
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -6-
——-
14. PW-4 Dr. Ravi Kumar Mahajan, the Head of the Department of
Plastic Surgery, had deposed that he was heading the team which had operated
upon the complainant.
15. PW-8 Dr. Punil Jamwal, Junior Resident, Surgery Department, Guru
Nanak Dev University & Hospital, had stated that the condition of the complainant
was serious and critical. He further deposed that the injured was given first aid to
control the bleeding of his head, hands and other parts. He was administered local
anaesthesia and wounds were stitched.
16. PW-10 Dr. Rabinder Singh Waan, Critical Care Specialist and
Anaesthesiologist, Amandeep Hospital had deposed that he had administered
anaesthesia to the complainant and testified to the seriousness of the condition of
the complainant.
17. PW-12 Dr. Monica Mehra, Radiologist, Amandeep Hospital had stated
that she had conducted the radiography of the complainant on 12.08.2016,
13.08.2016 & 14.08.2016. She had testified to the seriousness of the condition of
the complainant and had stated that he suffered multiple fractures and injuries on
his head, hands, wrist arms and other parts of the body.
18. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution case
against the appellant has been duly established and the conviction under Sections
307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 379-B(2), 506 & 341 IPC is maintained and upheld.
19. Insofar as to what should be the adequate sentence in the aforenoted
facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that keeping in mind that
the appellant is over 60 years of age, he has undergone an actual sentence of 07
years, 10 months & 16 days and he has not been allowed parole/furlough even for
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:131644-DB
CRA-D-658-DB-2018 (O&M) -7-
——-
a single day, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced from life
imprisonment to a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years.
20. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct that the sentence
of the appellant be reduced from life imprisonment to the period of 12 years. The
impugned order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 is modified to this extent.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
October 03, 2024
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 03-11-2024 02:09:30 :::