Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Nehra and S.C.Datta JJ.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Anil Kumar
Criminal Appeal No. 461-DBA of 1987,
Decided On : OCTOBER 31, 1995
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 326, INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE EIGHTHLY OF SECTION 320, INDIAN PENAL CODE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Anil Kumar, the accused, was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing Bansi Lal, causing an injury that endangered his life. The prosecution alleged that the accused had a verbal altercation with Bansi Lal before stabbing him, while the accused claimed he was falsely implicated and had been confined by the injured and witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The court found that the injury suffered by Bansi Lal was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the accused had been rightly convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused intended to cause such a bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature? 2. Whether the provisions of clause eighthly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, are attracted to the facts of the present case? 3. Whether the sentence awarded to the accused was appropriate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the injury suffered by Bansi Lal was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the accused had been rightly convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. 2. The court relied on previous judgments of the court in Tej Ram v. State of Punjab and Atma Singh v. State of Punjab to interpret clause eighthly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, and held that the injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as dangerous to life. 3. The court found that the trial court had erred in sentencing the accused to a little more than ten months imprisonment only and that this was a fit case where the accused-respondent should have been awarded a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, enhanced the sentence of the accused to a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine, if recovered, was to be paid to Bansi Lal, the injured.
A.S.Nehra, J.
1. State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the decision dated April 20, 1987 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by which Anil Kumar, accused-respondent, has been convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo a little more than ten months rigorous imprisonment which he had already suffered as detention during the investigation and trial of the case.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:-
The services of Anil Kumar accused were terminated by M/s Satluj Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana, sometime prior to the present occurrence. On June 5, 1986, the accused came to the premises of the factory in order to see the employer, but Bansi Lal injured (PW2), who was working as a peon in that factory for the last ten years, did not allow him to see the employer which resulted in the exchange of hot words. On June 7, 1986, at about 4.15 P.M., Bansi Lal, injured, went to the Tea Stall of Tehal Singh (PW4) for fetching tea, when Anil Kumar accused happened to accost him there and started abusing him saying that he was responsible for the termination of his services. Bansi Lal PW restrained the accused from doing so, whereupon the accused stabbed him on the right flank with a spring knife. On receipt of knife injury, Bansi Lal injured PW fell on the ground. PW3 Charanjit Singh PW 4 Tehal Singh and Onkar Singh, who were present there, raised alarm, upon which the accused fled away alongwith the knife.
3 Dr. Kulwant Singh (PW7) examined Bansi Lal injured on the same day at 5.00 p.m. and found an incised wound measuring 1-1/4" x 1/4" on the right illiac region with fresh bleeding. He did not probe the depth of the injury. The corresponding cuts on the shirt and banian were also observed by the doctor. The injury was kept under observation.
4. Thereafter the injured was removed to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, for treatment where Dr. George Kavoor (PW6) operated upon him on the same evening at 8.10 p.m. and he found perforation of the ileum and anterior wall of coecum, besides the presence of retroperitoneal and sub coceal haematoma.
5. A.S.I. Romesh Chander (PW5), on receipt of intimation at about 4.35 p.m. on that day regarding the admission of Bansi Lal, injured, in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, rushed there and thereafter to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana on learning about his removal there. He elicited the opinion of the doctor about the fitness of Bansi Lal injured to make a statement and thereafter recorded his statement, Ex. PB, which was concluded at 8.15 p.m. and on its basis a case under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana, by S.I. Surjit singh. Thereafter, ASI Romesh Chander arrived at the spot and recorded the statements of Tehal Singh, Charanjit Singh and Onkar Singh witnesses. He also prepared the visual site plan, Ex. PJ, of the spot. He observed some blood-stains in front of the shop of Tehal Singh PW, but did not lift the same being not in a position to be lifted. On receipt of injury report from the doctor, the offence was got changed to one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Anil Kumar accused was produced before ASI Romesh Chander on June 12, 1986 by his brother and he was arrested. On his interrogation on June 15, 1986, the accused disclosed before ASI Romesh Chander vide his statement Ex. PE that he had kept concealed (buried) a kamanidar knife in a park situated near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he led the police party to the said place and got recovered knife, Ex. P-3, after digging some earth. A separate case under Section 25 of the Act was got registered against the accused. Sketch of the knife, Ex, PG, was also prepared and the knife, Ex. P3, was seized vide Memo Ex. PF, in the presence of Charanjit Singh and HC Kulwant Singh.
6. On June 20, 1986, Nachhattar Singh, Draftsman, visited the spot and prepared its scaled plan, Ex. PA, at the pointing out by Tehal Singh (PW4).
7. The prosecution to p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
