SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(P&H) 1166

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Aggarwal, J.
Gurdev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1994,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 10, 2005

Gambling - Indulging in Dara Satta or being involved in Section 13-A would not mean that person was of a bad character or anybody could go and cause injuries on his person.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 450, 326 324, 506 - Appeal against conviction - House trespass in order to commit offence - Grevious hurt - Appeal had trespassed into the house of (J) at night time without any cause after having made preparation to cause hurt and had committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for life i.e. u/s 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Not a fit case to take any lenient view - Appeal Dismissed. (Paras 11 and 12)

       Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated - Statement recorded in the Court of CJM of PW2 is relevant and has to be relied. (Para 9)

       Public Gambling Act, 1867 - Section 13-A - Person of bad Character - Held, Indulging in Dara Satta or being involved in Section 13 - A would not mean that person was of a bad character or anybody could go and cause injuries on his person. (Para 10)

       

Judgment

M.M.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 24-02-1994 of Additional sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby accused/appellant Gurdev Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 450/326/324/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI or six months under Section 450 IPC. For offence under Section 326 IPC to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for four months. For offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo RI for two years and for offence under Section 506 IPC to undergo RI for six months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. FIR for offence under Sections 506/452/324 IPC had been registered against the accused/appellant on the statement of Jagdish Kumar that on 17.7.1987 at about 10.00 or 10.30 PM he was lying on a cot in his room, in Prem Basti Sangrur and was listening the transistor. The gate of his room was open because milk-vendor had come to supply milk. Then Gurdev Singh accused entered the house. He was holding an iron weapon in his hand. Then Jagdish Kumar asked Gurdev Singh as to for what purpose he had come. Gurdev Singh appellant did not reply but then gave blows with both hands. Jagdish Kumar raised his left arm and the blow hit on the wrist of his left arm. When Gurdev Singh wanted to give another blow on his neck then he (Jagdish Kumar) again raised his left arm and the blow his on his left arm. Jagdish Kumar raised alarm. Gurdev Singh again gave a blow which hit partly on the right arm. Then Raghbir Chand, brother of Jagdish Kumar came from the kotha and Gurdev Singh fled away. While fleeing, he raised lalkara asking Raghbir Chand to go back otherwise he will also be given blows. After registration of the case police had taken up investigation. They had originally filed challan of case triable by the Court of Magistrate but after some evidence Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangrur found that the case was for offence under Section 450 IPC exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Case was accordingly committed to the Court of Session. Accused/appellant faced trial for offence under Sections 326/324/452/450/506 IPC. The case was found to be duly proved. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. Jagdish Kumar complainant-injured had been examined as witness in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate but had died before he could be examined during trial in the Session Court.

4. Counsel for the appellant had argued that the case against accused/appellant was not proved as Jagdish Kumar complainant was not examined and an opportunity to cross-examine Jagdish Kumar had been denied. He argued that Raghbir Chand PW2 was just brother of Jagdish Kumar and no reliance could be placed on his testimony. It was also pointed out that as per allegations, occurrence had taken placed on 17.7.1987 whereas FIR was recorded on 24.7.1987 after delay of about one week. He pointed out that there was no motive for the accused/appellant to cause injuries on the person of Jagdish Kumar. it was also argued by counsel for the appellant that Jagdish Kumar was a bad character as it will come out from certified copies Exhibits D-1 to D-20.

5. In this case, Dr. K.S. Raikhi who had medico-legally examined Jagdish Kumar on 17.7.1987 itself at about 10.30 PM had appeared as PW1 and had proved the following injuries on the person of Jagdish Kumar :

1. Incised wound 6" x 1/2" skin deep on the left side of the neck placed obliquely just below the left of angle mandible. Bleeding from the wound was present.

2. Incised wound 4" x 1" bone deep on the back of left forearm 5" below the olercranon process. The underlying bone cut. The fractured end of the bone (ultra) protruding from the wound. Profuse bleeding of the wound was present.

3. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the back of left forearm 5" below the olercranon process.












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top