Back
1993 Supreme(P&H) 361
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S.Nehra, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Kesar Ram
Criminal Revision No. 714 of 1992,
Decided On : MAY 20, 1993
An injury that endangers life but does not necessarily cause death falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, and not attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 307, 325, 320, 326 INDIAN PENAL CODE - INTERPRETATION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN GRIEVOUS HURT AND ATTEMPT TO MURDER - INJURY ENDANGERING LIFE BUT NOT NECESSARILY CAUSING DEATH - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 326, NOT 307 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused-respondents caused injuries to the victims during a dispute over crop damage. The question before the court was whether the injuries fell under the category of grievous hurt under Section 325 or attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the injuries sustained by the victim, though grievous and dangerous to life in the absence of medical aid, did not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. The court relied on precedents where injuries endangering life were held to be covered under Section 320 IPC, defining grievous hurt, rather than Section 307 IPC.
Issues: The primary issue in the case was to determine the appropriate legal classification of the injuries inflicted on the victim - whether they constituted grievous hurt under Section 325 or an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between grievous hurt and attempt to murder based on the nature of the injuries and the intent behind the act. It held that an injury that endangers life but does not necessarily cause death falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, and not attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the prosecution, upholding the lower court's decision that no case under Section 307 IPC was made out against the accused-respondents. The court concluded that the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature but did not amount to an attempt to murder.
A. S. Nehra, J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated July 15, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, by which it was held that no case under sec. 307 Indian Penal Code is made out against the respondents and since the offences punishable under sections 307, 325, 148 Indian Penal Code read with sec. 149 are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case against the respondents was sent for trial to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: That on the statement of Niranjan Singh, recorded on 14.8.1991, the case was registered vide F. I. R. No.33 under sections 307, 325, 323, 148 read with Sec.149, Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sohana. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.8.1991 at about 8.00 a. m. , in village Bakarpur, Niranjan Singh and his brother, Norata Ram protested before Kesar Ram and his son Pirthi Chand, for the damage done to their Chari crop. Accused-respondent started abusing injured Niranjan Singh and picked up a danda and caused injuries on the left shoulder of Niranjan Singh. Raju, accused-respondent also came there armed with a lathi and caused injuries on the left arm, finger of left hand and palm of the right hand of Niranajan Singh. Gurnaib Singh alias Naib Singh and Ajaib Singh who are nephews of injured Niranjan Singh also came there. Pawan Kumar and Baljinder Singh, accused-respondents came there in the meantime. They were armed with lathies. Pawan Kumar, accused respondent caused injury on the right shoulder of Gurnaib Singh, Baljinder Singh, accused-respondent, caused injuries on the right arm of Ajaib Singh. Pawan Kumar, accused-respondent also caused injuries to Gurnaib Singh, alias Nilib Singh. Kesar Ram continued exhorting his co-accused to cause injuries. Accused-respondent Subhash Chand alias Bamba son of Pirthi Chand came there in the meantime armed with a lathi. Surinder Singh son of Niranjan Singh also came there on hearing the raula. Pawan Kumar and Baljinder Singh, accused-respondent started beating Surinder Singh with lathi. Pawan Kumar, accused-respondent caused injuries on the right knee of Surinder Singh. Baljinder Singh, accused-respondent hurled lathi on the head of Surinder Singh. Then Gurnam Singh and Nichittar Singh came there who intervened and rescued the injured from the accused-respondents. The accused-respondents then fled away from the place of occurrence.
3. The question in this case is whether injuries on Surinder Singh fall under sec. 325 Indian Penal Code or within the mischief of sec. 307 Indian Penal Code. When examined, two injuries were found on his person, one was on right knee joint and the other was lacerated wound of 2 x I on the right parietal region. Injury on right knee joint was declared grievous injury on parietal region which later on was opined as dangerous to life in absence of medical aid.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, after examining the case held that: From the circumstances under which injuries were given, it can safely be gathered that the act of the accused does not fall under the mischief of sec. 307, Indian Penal Code. Even if the opinion of the doctor is taken as such that injury on parietal region of Surinder Singh was dangerous to life in absence of medical aid, it falls within the definition of Grievious injury as given in sec. 320, I. P. C. Clause 8th of sec. 320 I. P. C. defines grievous hurt as any hurt which endangers life. The case of Rakesh Kumar V/s. State of Punjab, can be referred here. Injury on right side of lumber region 11/2 cm. away from the lidline was described as dangerous to life. It was observed that the description of this injury as dangerous to life cannot definitely bring the offence under sec. 307, I. P. C. because an injury which is dangerous to life is covered by the definition of grievous injury as given in sec. 320, I. P. C.
5. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Mishra
