Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Singh Rai, J.
Arun Kumar
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1986,
Decided On : JULY 10, 1989
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 307, 326, 324 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - OFFENCE OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER - DANGEROUS INJURY - GRIEVOUS INJURY - DISTINCTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 320(EIGHTLY) OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to three individuals. The appellant claimed self-defense and alleged that the injured parties attacked him first.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were disinterested and that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support his version of events. The court accepted the prosecution's case and convicted the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the injury caused to the victim was dangerous to life and constituted an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the appellant's actions were justified under the right of private defense.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that simply because an injury is declared dangerous by a doctor, it does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Other circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the relationship between the parties and the presence or absence of premeditation, must also be considered. 2. In this case, the court found that the parties were neighbors with no history of past enmity and that the occurrence appeared to have taken place without any premeditation. Therefore, the court concluded that the offense fell under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code, rather than Section 307. 3. The court also found that the appellant's claim of self-defense was not supported by evidence and that his injuries were likely sustained on a different date than the alleged occurrence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 326. The court reduced the appellant's sentence from 3-1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment to 1-1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Harbans Singh Rai, J.
1. Arun Kumar appellant was convicted by Shri A.S. Sodhi, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3-1/2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this appeal.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 4.9.1985, Moti Ram made a complaint to Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdit Singh that he was residing in Soodanwali Gali, near Civil Hospital, Moga and Arun Kumar appellant was his neighbour. Arun Kumar was in the habit of taking liquor and raising catcalls. On 3.9.1985, at about 9 or 10.00 p.m. Arun Kumar came in front of the house of Moti Ram and raised catcalls. Moti Ram protested and complained to Arun Kumars father. The appellant felt offended.
3. On 4.9.1985 at about 4.00 p.m. Moti Ram was present in his house and was talking to his brother Kanwar Bhan who had come from Delhi. Subhash Chander was also sitting there. The appellant came in front house house and started abusing them. Moti Ram went outside and asked the accused that why he was abusing them as they are discussing only their family affairs. The accused-appellant went inside his house and came back with `Karad (kitchen knife). In the meantime, Kanwar Bhan and Subhash Chander also came out of the house. The appellant gave a knife blow on the left shoulder of Moti Ram and when Kanwar Bhan went to rescue Moti Ram, he was given a blow in his chest and Subhash Chander was also given injures. Hues and cries were raised and Kartar Singh and Mohinder singh were attracted to the spot. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital. After investigation accused-appellant was challaned, tried and convinced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.
4. Prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. S.P. Bansal, PW-1, who had conducted X-ray examination of Kanwar Bhan and had found air in subcutaneous tissues on the right side of the chest. His report is Ex. P.1. PW-2 Moti Ram, PW-3 Kanwar Bhan and PW-4 Subhash Chander are the eye-witnesses. They have supported the case of the prosecution and given details of the occurrence. PW-5 Romesh Kumar Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, had medico-legally examined Moti Ram on 4.9.1985 and found one incised wound on the left side of the back. Dr. Romesh Kumar examined Subhash Chander at 4.55 p.m. the same day and found two incised injuries on his person. He also examined Kanwar Bhan same day at 5.10 p.m. and found one incised injury on his person. PW-6 Kulwant Singh Draftsman had prepared the site plan Ex. P.9 PW-7 Kartar Singh stated that on hearing the alarm raised he was attracted to the spot and he saw injuries being caused to Kanwar Bhan, Subhash Chander and Moti Ram by the accused-appellant. PW-8 ASI Gurdit Singh is the Investigating Officer.
5. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and gave his version as under :-
"I am innocent. The P.Ws. are interested witnesses. On 4.9.1985, at about 4 p.m. I was in my house and cutting vegetable with a Karad, when Moti Ram, his brother Kanwar Bhan and Subhash Chander armed with Dangs came inside the house. Kanwar Bhan hit me on the head with his dang and then they all caused me injuries at my hand, arms and shoulder. I, in right of private defence, gave injuries to them with the Karad, with which I was cutting the vegetable at that time Jagir Singh and Nachhattar Singh witnessed the said occurrence. The police arrested me in the evening and did not get my injuries examined till 6.9.1985. The police also did not get my injuries X-rayed, I have filed cross-complaint, which is pending trial in the lower Court."
6. Shri Vikramjit Singh Dhillon, M
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
