Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1899 (PNJ)

Gurnam v. State of Haryana

2011-10-19

K.C.PURI

body2011
ORDER K.C. Puri, J. - Accused/appellants Gurnam, Satnam, Sham Sukh and Amar Jeet Singh have directed this appeal against the judgment dated 9.4.2003 and order dated 10.4.2003 passed by Shri D.P. Chauhan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which the accused/appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the Indian Penal Code), under Sections 332 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 353 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs,500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were further sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case when put in brief is that on 11.7.1997, a ruqa from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar regarding admission of injured Head Constable Jasbir Singh and Head Constable Narender Kumar was received whereupon police party headed by ASI Nar Singh went to Civil Hospital, Hisar and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement on 12.7.1997 recorded the statement of HC Jagbir Singh, an application was made by Nar Singh ASI to the Medical Officer for obtaining opinion whether the injured were not fit to make statement. Medical Officer had found as many as nine injuries on his person as described in this MLR, and injury No. 3 in respect of Narender Kumar HC-injured was opined to have been caused with sharp edged weapon by the Medical Officer. On 12.7.1997 another application was made by ASI Nar Singh to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar for obtaining opinion if injured were fit to make statement. The Medical Officer gave his opinion to the effect that both the injured were fit to make statement. On 12.7.1997 another application was made by ASI Nar Singh to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hisar for obtaining opinion if injured were fit to make statement. The Medical Officer gave his opinion to the effect that both the injured were fit to make statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of injured Jagbir Singh Head Constable and on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PP/l was recorded. 3. It has been alleged that HC Jagbir Singh complainant alongwith Narender Kumar HC was present at Chautha Mile, Sirsa Road, Hisar in connection with patrolling duty when secret information was received that accused-appellants and one another person were distilling illicit liquor by means of working still under the "kikar" trees. On the basis of the said information, the complainant along with Narender Kumar HC went to the stated place and they found some smoke coming out of the kikar O trees. They parked their scooter near the minor and when they reached near the place of occurrence, Gurnam Singh, who was aimed with a kulhari, Sham Singh who was armed with an iron rod and other persons armed with "kikkar" sticks came towards the complainant and attacked upon them. They had caused multiple Injuries on the person of both the injured i.e. Jagbir Singh and Narender Kumar. They snatched their belts. Thereafter, both of them came to the Civil Hospital, Hisar where they were admitted. On the basis of the said statement, a case under sections 307/323/353/332 and 186 of Indian Penal Code was registered against all the accused. During investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PQ. The blood stained uniforms of both the injured, who were police officials, were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo 1 x,PQ/l, which was attested by Bir Singh HC and Ranbir Singh HC. Scaled site plan Ex.PS was also prepared. Accused were formally arrested. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused. 4. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused free of costs by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Illaqa Magistrate had committed the case to the court of Session vide order dated 25.8.1998. 5. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused. 4. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused free of costs by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The learned Illaqa Magistrate had committed the case to the court of Session vide order dated 25.8.1998. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar after hearing the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused, framed charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 353 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 332 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. Daya Nand (PW-1), Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta (PW-2), Inspector Prem Singh (lW-3), ASI B.S.Goriya (PW- 4), Constable Siri Pal (PW-5), HC Vijay Singh (PW-6), SI Dilbag (PW-7), HC Raj Singh (PW-8), HC Ved Pal (PW-9), SI Raghunath Singh Saini (PW-10), ASI Shish Ram (PW-11), ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-12), ASI Nar Singh (PW-13), HC Jagbir Singh (PW-14), HC Narender Singh (PW-15), Satpal Patwari (PW-16), Ram Phal retired Inspector (PW-17) and Mukt Ram Ex. Head Constable PW- 18. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied all the prosecution allegations and have pleaded their false implication in this case. In their defence, they examined Jarnail Kaur (DW- 1) and Mukesh Kumar Ahlmad (DW-2) and closed the same. 8. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused-appellants guilty under Sections 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal Code; under Sections 332 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 353 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them, as narrated above. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 9.4.2003 and order dated 10.4.2003, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 10. I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. 9. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 9.4.2003 and order dated 10.4.2003, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 10. I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the records of the case. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but has submitted that ingredients of offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. it is contended that the trial Court has itself held that none of the injuries have been declared grievous or dangerous to life by the doctor. The trial Court has wrongly held that since the injury is with the kulhari on the head of the injured and as such ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. It is contended that various authorities were cited before the learned trial Court to impress it that the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the JPC can only be said to be made out in case any of the injury endanger the life of the injured. At the most the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. causing simple hurt by a sharp weapon is made out. 12. Lastly, it is submitted that as per custody certificate appellant Gurnam has undergone incarceration fore a period of one year six months and five days, Satnam appellant has undergone incarceration fora period of one year five months and six days and Surinder Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of one year two months and Amarjit Singh has undergone incarceration for a period of one year, four months and seven days. The sentence under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code is only for one year each. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence for the period already undergone. 13. The learned State counsel has submitted that although no injury has been declared grievous but as per the statement of the doctor, nine injuries were found on the person, of Jagbir Singh HC and seven injuries were found on the person of Narinder Kumar HC. Some of the injuries were on head with kulhari. 13. The learned State counsel has submitted that although no injury has been declared grievous but as per the statement of the doctor, nine injuries were found on the person, of Jagbir Singh HC and seven injuries were found on the person of Narinder Kumar HC. Some of the injuries were on head with kulhari. So, the intention of the accused was to cause the death of police official who were discharging their official duties. So, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal. 14. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 15. So far as the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Sections 332, 353 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code is concerned that has not been challenged during the course of arguments. Otherwise also, I have gone through the records, the testimonies of the injured witnesses inspire confidence. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code stand affirmed. 16. The main point for consideration in the present appeal is whether the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not ? From the testimonies of PW- I Dr. Daya Nand, it is revealed that as many as nine injuries were found on the person of Jagbir Single HC and all these injuries were the result of blunt weapon. As many as seven injuries were found on the person of Narinder Kumar HC injured and out of those seven injuries, one injury was the result of sharp edged weapon whereas the remaining other six injuries were the result of blunt weapon. None of the injury has been declared grievous or dangerous to life and that fact has been conceded by the learned State counsel. Otherwise also, the trial Court has also held that no injury on the person of HC Jagbir Singh and HC Narinder Kumar was grievous or dangerous to their lives. 17. None of the injury has been declared grievous or dangerous to life and that fact has been conceded by the learned State counsel. Otherwise also, the trial Court has also held that no injury on the person of HC Jagbir Singh and HC Narinder Kumar was grievous or dangerous to their lives. 17. The learned trial Court has observed that since the doctor has stated that there was an injury with kulhari on the head of injured and as such the intention of the accused was to cause the death of the above said injured and accused were convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code also. The accused have relied upon authority Phan Rai v. Rajesh 1994(2) Criminal Court Judgments (P&H) page 94 and Parshotam Lal v. Shingara Rani 1996(2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) page 630 to support the contention that offence. under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out but the trial Court observed that since one of the injury with kulhari is on the head and as such offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is admitted case of the parties that none of the injury was grievous or dangerous to life. Mere inflicting one injury on the head with Kulhari with sharp edged weapon in my view does not attract the provision of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; more so when that injury has been found to be simple in nature. Had the intention of the accused to cause the death of the of police party in that case, they would have not stopped by inflicted one injury on the head with sharp edged weapon but would have inflicted more injuries with sharp edged weapon. So, the approach of the trial Court in ignoring the authority Parshotam Lals and Dhan Rais cases (supra) wherein it is mentioned that prosecution has to prove that injury inflicted endanger the life of the injured has been wrongly ignored by the trial Court. 18. So, the approach of the trial Court in ignoring the authority Parshotam Lals and Dhan Rais cases (supra) wherein it is mentioned that prosecution has to prove that injury inflicted endanger the life of the injured has been wrongly ignored by the trial Court. 18. So in view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted and that part of the judgment vide which the accused have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the [PC stands set aside and accused stand acquitted under that provision of law but stand convicted for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code is for one year. The appellants have already undergone incarceration for a period as detailed above, which is admittedly more than one year by all the appellants so the appellants stand sentenced under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for the period they have already undergone as detailed above. The above imprisonment of fine under Sections 323, 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code awarded by the trial Court stand affirmed. However, each of the appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. The said amount of fine be deposited with the trial Court within two months from today failing which the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On realization of the said fine amount, that shall be paid to the injured witnesses equally as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently. 19. With the modification in sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 20. A copy of this judgment he send to the trial Court for strict compliance. Appeal disposed of.