Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Vakil - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. App. No. 95-SB of 1997.
Decided On : 16 July, 1998
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307, 324, 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE - ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE - MEDICAL OPINION - CROSS-EXAMINATION - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE - MODIFICATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Balbir Singh and Vakil, were convicted under Section 307 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for stabbing Rajesh Kumar in the abdomen. Sarwan Singh, initially charged as a co-accused, was acquitted during the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the offense under Section 307 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of the surgeon's testimony, Dr. R.K. Goel, who had examined the injured and provided the opinion that the injury was dangerous to life. The court also found that the benefit of doubt should be extended to Sarwan Singh, as his involvement in the crime was not sufficiently established.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the offense under Section 307 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether Sarwan Singh was involved in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the opinion of Dr. Mahavir Singh, who had initially examined the injured and relied on Dr. Goel's opinion, could not be relied upon to establish the dangerous nature of the injury without Dr. Goel's testimony. The court emphasized the importance of cross-examination in ensuring a fair trial and held that the appellant's right to cross-examine Dr. Goel was violated. 2. The court found that the evidence against Sarwan Singh was not strong enough to establish his involvement in the crime. The court noted that the initial police investigation had found him innocent, and that the prosecution had not provided a satisfactory explanation for why he was later charged.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction of Balbir Singh and Vakil from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means). The court also reduced their sentences accordingly. Sarwan Singh was acquitted.
JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - By this judgment I dispose of two Criminal Appeals Nos. 95-SB of 1997 titled Vakil and another v. State of Haryana, and 61-SB of 1997 title Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, as both of them arise out of common judgment and order dated 10th January, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, who convicted Balbir Singh appellant under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, while Vakil and Sarwan appellants were convicted under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Balbir Singh appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Vakil and Sarwan were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months.
2. Brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :-
3. On 30th July, 1992 after receiving ruqa (Ex.PA) at about 8.10 A.M. from C.H.C. Samalkha, regarding the admission of injured Rajesh Kumar with a knife injury in his abdomen and then referring him for General Hospital, Panipat, A.S.I. Sat Pal Singh (P.W.10), with two constables was present at Bus Stand, Samalkha, to go to General Hospital, Panipat, when he met Smt. Sudershan Kumar (P.W.11), Headmistress of Government High School, village Rakshera, who gave him statement in writing (Ex.PG) about the occurrence. The statement was to the effect that on 30th July, 1992 at about 8 A.M. the students of 9th Class, including Rajesh Kumar (P.W.4), were preparing school ground for play, when three boys entered the school by scaling over the boundary wall and one of them gave knife injury in the abdomen of Rajesh Kumar. She was informed by Satish (P.W.9) brother of Rajesh Kumar, student of 10th Class, as well as by other boys, that said injury was given by accused Balbir Singh alias Dalbir and the name of other accused was Vakil, whereas, she could not be apprised about the third accused. The assailants belonged to village Rakshera and after causing injury, all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence after scaling over the boundary wall. Satish, brother of Rajesh Kumar, then took the injured to the hospital for medical help. The application (Ex.PG) was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case and formal F.I.R. (Ex.PA/1) was registered by Head Constable Ranbir Singh (P.W.1) for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer Shri Satpal Singh then went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan (Ex.PH) and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He visited General Hospital, Panipat, in order to record the statement of the injured but he was informed that injured Rajesh Kumar had already been referred to M.C.H. Rohtak. On the next day A.S.I. Satpal Singh went to M.C.H. Rohtak and after getting medical opinion (Ex.PD/1) about the fitness of the injured, his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per version of the injured on the day of occurrence he was preparing the school ground for play when all the three appellants came there after scaling over the boundary wall of the school. Vakil and Sarwan caught hold of him, while Balbir Singh alias Dalbir Singh gave him knife blow in his abdomen. He raised noise, attracting his brother Satish (PW9), Daya Nand and Ishaq. After causing the injury, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence after scaling over the boundary wall of the school. According to the injured the motive for the crime was that a day before accused Balbir Singh had lost a Kabaddi match from him and then he had quarrelled with him but they were separated at that time. However, the appellants had a gro
AI
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
