1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  No(s).  556 of 2009

SAHIB SINGH                                        Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. BOPANNA, J. :

(1) The appellant before us is assailing the judgment of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal

Appeal No.499 of 2005 dated 23.01.2008.  The High Court through

the said judgment upheld the judgment of Sessions Case No.20 of

2002 dated 22.02.2005.  Both the courts, through the concurrent

judgments have convicted the appellant herein for the offence

punishable  under  Section  326  I.P.C.   On  the  quantum  of

sentence, the High Court while taking note of other aspects and

having taken into consideration that the appellant has already

undergone more than five years of actual imprisonment has held

the same to be sufficient.  The High Court has also imposed

compensation of a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  Being aggrieved, the

appellant is before us in this appeal.     

(2) We  have  heard  Mr.  Saksham  Maheshwari,  learned  counsel

appearing for the appellant.  We have also heard Mrs. Jaspreet

2

Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and

also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

(3) From  the  facts  narrate  it  is  seen  that  an  FIR  was

registered to the effect that on 26.01.2002 at 05:30 p.m. when

the complainant-Jagir Singh (PW-3) along with his brother, the

deceased-Harbans Singh, was standing at his tube well outside

the village near eucalyptus trees, the accused came there with

weapons and attacked the deceased.  Based on the same, the law

was set into motion and the proceedings were initiated against

the  appellant  including  other  accused  who  having  appeared

before  the  court  have  stood  trial.   The  prosecution  has

tendered evidence in the proceedings.  It is in that light, the

Trial Court has taken note of that aspect and arrived at the

conclusion that the charge alleged against the accused more

particularly the appellant has been proved and accordingly the

conviction as well as sentence was ordered.  The appellant

claiming to be aggrieved of the order of the Trial Court landed

before the High Court.  The High Court while reappreciating the

evidence has taken into consideration the relied on evidence

and has arrived at the conclusion, as noted above.

(4) Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant,  has  contended  that  the  appellant  herein  was  not

named in the FIR and in that circumstance, the conviction of

the appellant-accused is not justified.

(5) Though  contentions  are  put  forth,  a  perusal  of  the

relevant  papers/materials  discloses  that  in  the  further

3

statement, the appellant has been named of having possessed a

kirpan  and  has  assaulted  the  deceased-Harbans  Singh.  On

investigation  the  charge  sheet  was  filed  including  the

appellant.

(6) In that regard, it would be relevant to take note of the

evidence  as  stated  by  the  complainant-Jagir  Singh  who  was

examined as PW-3.  The Trial Court has extensively referred to

the  evidence  wherein  Jagir  Singh  (PW-3)  has  specifically

referred to the name of the appellant herein.  In addition, the

evidence of Bachan Singh (PW-4) also discloses that he has

mentioned the name of the appellant.  In that circumstances,

though  there  are  other  sets  of  accused  but  insofar  as  the

appellant-accused is concerned when he has been named by the

said witnesses, namely, Jagir Singh (PW-3) and Bachan Singh

(PW-4), who were also the injured eye-witnesses to the extent

that the appellant-accused was armed with kirpan and about his

over act, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in

relying on their evidence to arrive at their conclusion.  If

the manner in which the instant occurrence has taken place is

taken note and also keeping in view the role of the appellant

herein, he has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. and the

other relevant accused have been convicted under Section 302

I.P.C.

(7) In that circumstance, while the presence of the appellant,

possession of kirpan and overt act is established through the

evidence of the eye-witnesses who were also injured, we are

satisfied that the Trial Court as well as the High Court having

4

taken note of the evidence has appropriately arrived at their

conclusion and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with

the conclusion reached through the impugned judgment.

(8) In that view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of merit

and is accordingly dismissed.       

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 31, 2019.