Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
DEV DARSHAN SUD, J.
Jai Dev - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Rev. No. 117 of 2004
Decided on : 23-09-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate vice Anup Chitkara, Advocate
For the Respondent:P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General With Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appropriate section under the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of injuries and relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Section 326 I.P.C. - Assault - Section 320, 324 I.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence of assault and the nature of injuries to determine the appropriate section under the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the definitions of grievous hurt under Section 320 I.P.C. and referenced case law to support its decision to convict the petitioner under Section 324 I.P.C. instead of Section 326 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for assaulting the complainant with a sickle, causing injuries. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of assault to be clear and rejected the petitioner's argument for acquittal based on alleged contradictions and enmity between the parties. It also determined the appropriate section under the Indian Penal Code for the offense based on the nature of the injuries.
Issues: The issues involved the evidence of assault, contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, and the appropriate section under the Indian Penal Code for the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the nature of the injuries and referenced the definitions of grievous hurt under Section 320 I.P.C. and relevant case law to determine the appropriate section under the Indian Penal Code for the offense.
Final Decision: The court set aside the imprisonment sentence and directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the victim. The petitioner was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and the petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
DEV DARSHAN SUD, J.
1. The petitioner is convicted for offences under Section 326 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the fine amount realized, a sum of Rs.2000/- has been directed to be paid to the complainant. These sentences have been confirmed by the learned appellate Court.
2. The case against the petitioner is that on 13.10.1995 at about 1 p.m. complainant Lal Singh (PW2) was going towards his field when the petitioner accosted him, started quarrelling, threatened him and struck him with a darat (sickle) on the left ear as a result of which he sustained injuries therein. He was thereafter beaten up with stones causing injuries on his arm, back and neck of the complainant. He raised a hue and cry whereupon Hem Singh, PW3 Damodar, PW5 Pamplu Devi and Megharu Devi rushed to the spot. On this, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and on their evidence held that the assault, in fact, was proved.
3. PW4 Dr. D.D. Rana issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PW4/A enumerating five injuries. The learned trial Court, holds that injury No. 1 which was opined to be grievous by the doctor and has been inflicted with a sharp edged weapon, the petitioner accused was sentenced under Section 326 I.P.C. and not under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. Appeal preferred has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
5. Learned counsel urges that the contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to warrant acquittal of the petitioner. In particular, learned counsel submits that the evidence of the prosecution could not be relied upon as it was motivated by enmity between the parties.
6. I have scrutinised the evidence on record and cannot persuade myself to hold that both these submissions are established on the record of the case. The evidence of the injured PW2 Lal Singh, PW3 Damodar and PW5 Pamplu Devi is clear on the question of assault.
7. Another point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there can be no conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel refers to the medico legal certificate (Ext. PW4/A), evidence of PW4 Dr. D.D. Rana and the provisions of Section 320 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Adverting first to the evidence of PW4 Dr. D.D. Rana, he admits in his cross-examination that the injuries caused to the complainant can be a result of fall. He details the following injuries in his evidence:
"1. Incised wound in the left pinne cut into two parts up to the base. Fresh bleeding is there. Margins are clear.
2. Abrasion in the back in the left reaputor region 6 cm. in length and 2 cm in depth.
3. Two abrasions in the right seapulor region 7 cm. in length and 2 cm in breadth at right angle to each other.
4. Abrasion in the left forearms 4 cm. below left elbow joint 2 cm. in length and 2 cm in breadth.
5. Abrasion in left eyebrow 2 cm. in length horizontal and 1 cm in breadth vertically.
9. Out of this, injury No. 1 has been opined to be grievous in nature.
10. Section 320 I.P.C. defines grievous hurt to means:
"First-Emasculation.
Secondly-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly-Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly-Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
11. Considering the evidence of the prosecution in totality, injury No. 1 which is on the left ear cannot be considered
