Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 2255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
R.B. Misra, and Surinder Singh, JJ.
Bhagat Ram. …..Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. …..Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No.493 of 2008.
Decided on: June 24th, 2011.
For the appellant :Mr. Anup Chitkara & Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocates.
For the respondent:Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the injury and the intention of the accused, leading to the application of the appropriate legal provision under the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Indian Penal Code - [Section 307] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of attempt to murder. The court also referred to Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the benefit of set-off for the period of detention during the trial. The judgment also referenced medical jurisprudence and the interpretations of injuries and their implications on the legal provisions.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved an altercation between the accused and the complainant, resulting in the accused inflicting a serious injury on the complainant's back with a weapon. The accused claimed false implication and argued that the injury was not imminently dangerous to life.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury was caused by the accused and was not imminently dangerous to life, leading to a conclusion that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. The court held the accused guilty under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit culpable homicide.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of the nature of the injury inflicted, the intention of the accused, and the appropriate legal provision applicable to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on medical jurisprudence and legal interpretations of dangerous injuries to conclude that the injury was not imminently dangerous to life, leading to the application of Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307. The court also considered the absence of intention to cause death by the accused.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and granted the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was also ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
SURINDER SINGH,J:
The appellant, hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ has challenged the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in Sessions Trial No.12-R/7 of 08/07, on 5.8.2008, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also granted.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the present appeal can be stated thus. PW2 Kesar Singh and PW1 Dev Raj are nomads of Kinnaur district reeling their herd of sheep/goats for grazing at various places. During winter season, they had been going to the areas of district Sirmaur and on-set of the summer season, used to return to Kinnaur.
(ii) On 28th of April, 2006, both of them while returning to district Kinnaur alongwith herd of sheep, reached in the area of Jubbal. On the aforesaid day, they camped at a place known as Khara Pathar alongwith four other companions. They could not move from that place as about dozen of their sheep and goats went missing.
(iii) On the previous day to the day of incident, Kesar Singh (PW1) and Dev Raj (PW2) were searching for their missing goats and sheep, in that pursuit, in the morning at about 7.15 a.m., they reached in the courtyard of accused Bhagat Ram, located near Potato Farm. Kesar Singh enquired from the accused whether he had seen his goats/ sheep which had gone astray. The accused, who was having a Kassi, an instrument used for digging the earth retaliated, whether he was a thief and dealt a blow of Kassi on the back of Kesar Singh. The wound swelled up, he suffered pain in his back. Thus, both of them went to the Police Station and lodged a report Ext.PW4/A.
(iv) PW2 Kesar Singh was got medically examined by the Police from PW6 Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Daroch, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jubbal. She found a contusion on the left side of the back of chest of the size 4 x 2 cms. irregular in shape and reddish in colour. Doctor found the crepitation present. She suspected fracture of underlying bone of the left side chest, thus, advised X-ray and referred him to the Civil Hospital, Rohru for further management, consultation and opinion of the surgical specialist.
(v) The injured was got x-rayed by PW7 Dr. O.P. Ram Dev, Radiologist and under his supervision the x-ray was conducted. The x-ray films are Exts.PW7/B and C respectively. He found the fracture of 8th and 9th ribs with left CP angle obliterated with hydro pneumothorax and gave his report Ext.PW7/D.
(vi) PW5 Dr. Gopal Singh, Medical Officer (Surgeon), Civil Hospital, Rohru, on the request of PW6 Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Daroch, gave his opinion on the report of the Radiologist. He opined that there was fracture of 8th and th ribs on the left side with pneumothorax. The injury was opined to be dangerous to life. His report is Ext.PW5/A, as such, formal FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered and during investigation, police recovered the weapon of offence (Kassi) aforesaid, which was sealed. Police also prepared site plan of the place of alleged incident.
3. After completing the investigation, police finalized the challan against the accused for the offences aforesaid, as such, it was presented in the Court for his trial. The accused was accordingly charge-sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While denying the circumstances found attendant upon him, he took up the stand that the complainant and his friend branded him as a thief in the presence of Rajinder Singh and his wife PW3 Kamla Devi and forced their entry into his house and godown to conduct the sear
