1997 (12) TMI 667 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Adequacy of evidence and witness testimonies.
3. Consideration of the defense's version of events.
4. Applicability of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellants, Chhota Singh and Mal Singh, were convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Chamkaur Singh. The trial court found them guilty based on the evidence presented, which included eyewitness testimonies and medical reports. The appellants were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each, with an additional one year of imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Adequacy of Evidence and Witness Testimonies:
The prosecution's case was supported by the testimonies of two key eyewitnesses, Chanda Singh and Kulwant Singh, who provided consistent accounts of the incident. Chanda Singh testified that the appellants were exchanging words with female members of Kulwant Singh's family and, upon being asked to stop, they retaliated by throwing brickbats at Chamkaur Singh. This account was corroborated by Kulwant Singh, who also witnessed the appellants hitting Chamkaur Singh with brickbats. The medical evidence provided by Dr. Ramesh Kumar confirmed that the injuries sustained by Chamkaur Singh were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

3. Consideration of the Defense's Version of Events:
The defense argued that Chamkaur Singh fell from a wall and sustained injuries, which led to his death. However, the trial court rejected this version, finding it inconsistent and untrustworthy. The sole defense witness, Gurbachan Singh, provided conflicting statements, initially claiming that Chamkaur Singh fell from a wall and later stating he fell from a roof. The court found the prosecution's version more credible, supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence.

4. Applicability of the Right to a Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants' counsel argued for a lenient view, citing the principles of speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court acknowledged the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right, referencing several Supreme Court cases, including *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* and *Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar*. The court noted that the appellants had already undergone 13 months of imprisonment and that the incident occurred 12 years ago. The court emphasized that the delay in the judicial process should not be held against the appellants, especially when they had not engaged in any obstructive tactics.

5. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed by the Trial Court:
Considering the prolonged duration of the case and the appellants' conduct during the trial and appeal, the court found it appropriate to reduce the sentence. The court cited precedents where the Supreme Court had reduced sentences due to inordinate delays, such as in *Bharat Prasad Gupta v. State of West Bengal*. The court concluded that the appellants' sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, taking into account the principles of justice and the right to a speedy trial.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, but the sentence was modified. The court reduced the appellants' sentence to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of the right to a speedy trial and considering the appellants' conduct during the judicial process.