Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1208 (PNJ)

Jangir Singh v. Sukhdev Singh

2004-11-01

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Criminal Procedure Code") prays for quashing order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur upholding the order dated 9.9.2003 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur whereby application filed by the complainant/petitioner has been dismissed. The prayer made in the application was that the case should be committed to the Sessions Court as offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code has been made out. The F.I.R. was registered on the statement made by one Jangir Singh. The narration of allegations in the FIR shows that on 23.1.2003 at about 1.00 P.M. the accused were installing submersible motor in the land purchased by them. The complainant is also a co-sharer in that land. Jangir Singh and his son Sukhpal Singh made an attempt to stop the accused from installing submersible pump. In the process a scuffle took place and there was exchange of filthy abuses between the parties. Jangir Singh accused and Raghbir Singh armed with iron rods raised a Lalkara to teach them a lesson and injuries were caused to the complainant and Sukhpal Singh. The medical report did not indicate that any of those injuries was dangerous to life. All the injuries were said to have been caused by blunt weapon except one injury on the person of Jangir Singh complainant. 2. When the case came up for consideration for framing of charge, the complainant/petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate for committing the case to the Court of Sessions and the application was dismissed vide order dated 9.9.2003 passed by the Magistrate. The Revision Petition filed against the afore-mentioned order has been dismissed by the Court of Sessions. It has been found by the Court of Sessions that only one injury on the palmer aspect of right hand was caused by a sharp edged weapon whereas rest of injuries appeared to be caused by the blunt weapon. Similarly, none of the injuries on the person of Sukhpal Singh was reported to be caused with a sharp edged weapon. These were contusions or abrasions. It was also found that all the injuries except one on the cervical area of the neck and right occipital parietal area were on non-vital parts of the body. 3. Similarly, none of the injuries on the person of Sukhpal Singh was reported to be caused with a sharp edged weapon. These were contusions or abrasions. It was also found that all the injuries except one on the cervical area of the neck and right occipital parietal area were on non-vital parts of the body. 3. The contention of complainant/petitioner that intention has to be gathered from the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and not merely from the seat of injuries or weapon used, was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. It was further observed that there is no medical opinion expressed by the doctor that injuries were dangerous to life and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held that at this stage, no offence under Section 307 or 308 Indian Penal Code was made out and dismissed the Revision Petition. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the manner of inflicting injuries and the conduct adopted by the accused has to be kept in view to record a finding whether an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code has been made out or not. There mere fact that the injury caused or the weapon used cannot constitute a valid ground to conclude that no offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was made out. Referring to the number of injuries on the person of Sukhpal Singh, the learned counsel has pointed out that there were total 16 injuries on the person of Sukhpal Singh and all the injuries were declared to have been caused by a blunt weapon. He has also pointed out that Jangir Singh suffered seven injuries and injury No. 1 was declared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and the other injuries Nos. 2 to 7 were caused by blunt weapon. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel has submitted that a clear case for adding an offence under Sections 307 and 308 Indian Penal Code is made out and the Magistrate was under an obligation to commit the case for sessions trial. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782. 5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782. 5. After hearing learned counsel I am of the view that no case is made out for issuance of directions to the Magistrate for adding Sections 307 and 308 Indian Penal Code and committing the case for sessions trial. Learned Sessions Judge has examined the injuries in detail and has rightly concluded as follows : "There was only one injury on the palmer aspect of the right hand which was with a sharp edged weapon whereas rest of the injuries were with blunt weapons. Similarly, none of the injuries on the person of Sukhpal Singh was reported to be with a sharp edged weapon. These were contusions or abrasions. All the injuries except the one on right fore arm of Sukhpal Singh were simple. In his case also, all the injuries except the one on the cervical area of the neck and the right occipital parietal area were on non-vital parts of the body. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the intention of the accused-respondents can well be gathered from the fact that none of the injuries was caused on the vital parts of the body. Had there been any such intention on the part of the accused-respondents, they would have caused injuries on their head but it was not done. The injured were examined by the doctor but it was never opined that the injuries were dangerous to life. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage if offence under Section 307 or 308 was made out." 6. It is thus obvious that injuries caused by sharp edged weapon on the palmer aspect of the right hand could not be considered as dangerous to life. Firstly, no opinion has been expressed by the Doctor to the effect that the afore-mentioned injuries individually or collectively with other injuries could be considered as dangerous to life. It is further evident that accused Jagdev Singh was armed with rifle which was not used at all which further would indicate the absence of intention to commit an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Moreover, none of the injuries are on the vital parts of the body of the complainant or injured. It is further evident that accused Jagdev Singh was armed with rifle which was not used at all which further would indicate the absence of intention to commit an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Moreover, none of the injuries are on the vital parts of the body of the complainant or injured. No injury has been caused on the head by the iron rod which the accused were carrying. Therefore, no legal infirmity could be found in the view taken by the ld. Sessions Judge. 7. The argument based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkashs case (supra) has failed to impress me because in that case the intention was gathered from the course adopted by the accused inasmuch as the victim was regularly starred (stabbed) in order to accelerate his end and it was held that such a conduct would constitute an attempt to commit murder. However, in the present case there is no such indication which may show that the cumulative effect of all the injuries would constitute an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Even otherwise, the learned Sessions Judge has refused to add offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code at the present stage. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel. 8. In view of the above, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that no observation made by this Court should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the order of the Sessions Judge is being upheld at this stage.