Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Virender Singh, J.
Rajender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 83-SB of 1995.
Decided On : 21 July, 2004
Section 307 Indian Penal Code - Assault - [Section 307 Indian Penal Code] - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for assaulting the victim with a Kulhari. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and medical records, to establish the gravity of the offense and the intention of the appellant. The court also considered the discrepancies in the investigation and the motive projected by the prosecution. The appellant's attempt to dilute the offense to a lesser charge was rejected, and the court reaffirmed the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The court modified the quantum of sentence, reducing the substantive sentence from 7 years to 3 years and awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the injured party under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for assaulting the victim with a Kulhari. The prosecution's case was based on witness statements and medical evidence, while the defense argued false implication and discrepancies in the investigation. The appellant appealed the judgment, challenging the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence, the new story developed by the complainant, and the gravity of the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and medical records, to establish the gravity of the offense and the intention of the appellant. The court also considered the discrepancies in the investigation and the motive projected by the prosecution. The appellant's attempt to dilute the offense to a lesser charge was rejected, and the court reaffirmed the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The court modified the quantum of sentence, reducing the substantive sentence from 7 years to 3 years and awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the injured party under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence, discrepancies in the investigation, and the gravity of the offense, with the appellant challenging the prosecution's case and attempting to dilute the offense to a lesser charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statement of the injured party, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish the gravity of the offense and the intention of the appellant. The court also considered the discrepancies in the investigation and the motive projected by the prosecution. The attempt to dilute the offense to a lesser charge was rejected, and the court reaffirmed the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The court modified the quantum of sentence, reducing the substantive sentence from 7 years to 3 years and awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the injured party under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, modified the quantum of sentence, reducing the substantive sentence from 7 years to 3 years, and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the injured party under Section 357 Criminal Procedure Code.
Virender Singh, J. - Appellant Rajinder son of Leela is convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated 25.1.1995 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is worth mentioning here that along with the present appellant Basti Ram son of Sheo Narain was also booked. He, however, stands acquitted by the trial Court. State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal.
3. The appellant was charged under Section 307 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court on the allegations that on 1.2.1994 in the area of Bocharia, he had assaulted Bhup Singh-injured (PW-1) with Kulhari. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 1.2.1994 at about 3.00 P.M. Bhup Singh PW-1 was going from his house to his tubewell for irrigating his agricultural land. When he reached near the pond situated outside the village, he came across the present appellant and Basti Ram (since acquitted) who was standing in the way. The appellant was armed with Kulhari. He enquired from Bhup Singh as to where he was going. Upon which Bhup Singh told him that he was going to his fields for operating tubewell. On this the appellant sarcastically remarked that he would despatch him to the fields. Basti Ram co-accused of the present appellant then caught hold of Bhup Singh and Rajinder Singh gave a blow with his kulhari on the back of his neck. He consequently fell down. The appellant and his co-accused then fled away. The occurrence was seen by Budh Ram, Shiv Lal, Gajraj and Om Parkash (PW-2). Bhup was immediately removed to Hospital by his father Dalip Singh, Subhash and one Hanuman (PW-6).
4. The motive projected is that an altercation had taken place between the present appellant and Bhup Singh about an year prior to the occurrence on the question of passing along the boundary line of the fields. Doctor of Primary Health Centre sent ruqa to Police Station Ateli whereupon HC Vijender Singh PW-7 went to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex. PA of injured Bhup Singh. He made his endorsement Ex. PA/1 and sent the ruqa to the concerned police station for recording of the FIR whereupon the formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded. Jai Narain (PW-8) took up the investigation of this case on 2.2.1994, went to the spot, prepared rough site plan Ex. PW-8/A. He also recorded the statement of certain PWs and took into possession the clothes of injured Bhup Singh. Opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of the injury was also obtained by this witness. He arrested the appellant on 10.2.1994 and on interrogation he suffered disclosure statement that he had kept concealed an axe in the mustard fields of one Hari Ram and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement he got the iron axe Ex. P-1 recovered and the same was also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. After the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned in this case whereas the co-accused Basti Ram was found innocent and put in column No. 2. He was subsequently summoned to face trial on an application moved under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code by the State.
5. In order to prove the charge of Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has examined Bhup Singh as PW-1 the injured of this case who has reiterated his version already given by him in his initial statement Ex. PA which is the basis of the registration of the present case.
6. PW-2 is Om Parkash son of Bhagwan Singh who had allegedly seen the occurrence. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.
7. PW-3 Attar Singh is a formal witness who had brought the bed head ticket (medical record) of Bhup Singh injured along with all the X-ray films. The said record is exhib
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
