Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 582 (PNJ)

Gurjit Singh alias Jeeta v. State of Punjab

2012-04-19

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Gurjit Singh alias Jeeta, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the court has framed charge against the petitioner for an offence punishable inter-alia under section 307 IPC. For deciding the revision petition, brief facts of the case would be required to be noticed and the same are as under:- 2. The complainant, Dharam Singh son of Pyara Singh, respondent No.2, has a brother, named, Lachhman Singh, whose wife, named, Ranjit Kaur, is Sarpanch of village Lehra. On 22.6.2010, work of construction of stadium was going on in the village. Dharam Singh, complainant with his brother Lachhman Singh started from the stadium on motorcycle on that day. Lachhman Singh was driving the motorcycle. At about 7.15 pm, when their motorcycle had just crossed the turn of Dehlon Malerkotla road towards village Khera to go to their village, they came across Gurjit Singh alias Jeeta armed with gandasi, Jagdeep Singh alias Jaggi armed with kirch and two unknown young persons having their faces muffled. Seeing them, Lachhman Singh threw the motorcycle on the ground and Dharam Singh, the complainant also jumped from the motorcycle towards backside. Gurjit Singh alias Jeeta gave a gandsi blow aiming at the head of Lachhman Singh. However, Lachhman Singh turned a little and the blow fell on the nose, mouth and right cheek of Lachhman Singh. Jagdeep Singh alias Jaggi then gave blow with kirch to Lachhman Singh, which had hit him on the right side of the back of his chest. Other blows with gandasi were given to Lachhman Singh, which had hit him on the shoulder of his right arm, backside of right hand and backside of right leg and on the backside of knee of the left foot. The two young persons kept raising lalkara calling upon their companions not to spare Lachhman Singh. In the meanwhile, Ranjit Kaur came to the spot and saw the occurrence. The noise raised by the complainant and his bhabhi Ranjit Kaur attracted other persons, on seeing whom the assailants went away. The two young persons kept raising lalkara calling upon their companions not to spare Lachhman Singh. In the meanwhile, Ranjit Kaur came to the spot and saw the occurrence. The noise raised by the complainant and his bhabhi Ranjit Kaur attracted other persons, on seeing whom the assailants went away. The cause of grievance, as stated in the FIR, is that on 4.5.2010, Paramjit Singh alias Pamma committed suicide on account of his harassment by Gurjit Singh and others and in that matter, Lachhman Singh was helping the family of Paramjit Singh on account of which, Gurjit Singh and others were angry with him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the order dated 7.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby a prima facie case was found to have been made out against the petitioner and others for an offence punishable inter-alia under section 307 IPC. According to him, no reason is given in this order to come to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and others for the said offence. He has further submitted that all the injuries allegedly suffered by Lachhman Singh in the alleged occurrence are simple. According to him, there is no opinion of the doctor that any injury found on Lachhman Singh was dangerous to life. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in reply to the petition, the State has filed written statement by way of affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Rural-Gill), Ludhiana. According to him, in paragraph No. 12 of the revision petition, the petitioner has claimed that there is no opinion of the doctor on the basis of which, the injuries or any one of the injuries of Lachhman Singh could be said to be dangerous to life on the basis of which, offence punishable under section 307 IPC could be added in the FIR. According to him, learned trial court did not consider this fact and without application of mind, ordered the framing of charge under section 307 IPC. He has then drawn my attention to the corresponding paragraph of the reply, wherein the contents of para No. 12 of the petition are claimed to be “matter of record”. According to him, learned trial court did not consider this fact and without application of mind, ordered the framing of charge under section 307 IPC. He has then drawn my attention to the corresponding paragraph of the reply, wherein the contents of para No. 12 of the petition are claimed to be “matter of record”. According to him, there is, therefore, no denial on the part of the State to the fact that none of the injuries on the person of Lachhman Singh has been declared dangerous to life by the doctor. According to him, the offence which is made out in this case is punishable under section 324 IPC and the same would be triable by Magistrate of the Ist class. 5. Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant has admitted that none of the injuries of Lachhman Singh has been declared dangerous to life by the doctor. According to him, the translation of the FIR as appears at page No. 25 of the paper book, Annexure P1, is incorrect and misleading. According to him, in all, nine injuries have been caused on all parts of the body of Lachhman Singh. According to him, intention to cause death could be gathered from the fact that nine injuries were caused to Lachhman Singh by dangerous weapons. According to him, for attracting section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. According to him, it is sufficient to justify a charge under section 307 IPC if there is prima facie evidence of an intention coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram & Ors., [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 716.] : 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 956, where it is laid down as under :- “9. To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.” “12. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.” 6. The MLR of Lachhman Singh shows nine injuries to have been noticed on his person on 22.6.2010 at 8.10 PM. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.” 6. The MLR of Lachhman Singh shows nine injuries to have been noticed on his person on 22.6.2010 at 8.10 PM. Injury at No. 7 is a group of two reddish abrasions and counting that injury as two, the number of injuries would become ten. The weapon allegedly used by Gurjit Singh alias Jeeta, the petitioner is gandasi and the weapon used by Jagdeep Singh alias Jaggi is a kirch. Both these weapons are sharp edged weapons. The very first blow given by the petitioner is said to be aimed at the head of Lachhman Singh. A person who gave blow with gandasi aiming the same at the head of the victim cannot be said to have acted with any other intention except the one mentioned in section 307 IPC. Even though, the resultant injury or injuries are simple, that would hardly make any difference because before the blow would have been received, the position of the victim was changed and the resultant injury was on three parts of the body and was simple. 7. In a case where a gun is fired aiming at the victim and the victim escapes unhurt on account of any intervening cause, still the offence punishable under section 307 IPC would be attracted because the intention requisite to constitute the offence punishable under section 307 IPC could be gathered from the act of the accused. In the instant case, the blow was given and the same was aimed at the head of Lachhman Singh and in giving the said blow, it can certainly be said that he had the requisite intention bringing his act within the purview of section 307 IPC. The other accused also used a kirch, which is a dagger like sharp edged weapon and the assault with these weapons causing ten injuries to the victim would certainly make out a case for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. 8. In these circumstances, absence of report of the doctor that any one of the injuries on Lachhman Singh is dangerous to life, is of no consequence and on this ground, it cannot be said that no case under section 307 IPC is made out for the purpose of framing the charge. 9. 8. In these circumstances, absence of report of the doctor that any one of the injuries on Lachhman Singh is dangerous to life, is of no consequence and on this ground, it cannot be said that no case under section 307 IPC is made out for the purpose of framing the charge. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana framing the charge against the petitioner for an offence punishable interalia under section 307 IPC. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. ------------------