Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Sampuran Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 366-SB of 1996.
Decided On : 18 August, 1998
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MITIGATION OF OFFENCE - EXCESSIVE SENTENCE - INTERPRETATION OF INJURIES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - PROOF OF MOTIVE - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - REVISION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
Sampuran Singh and Subhash were convicted under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for attacking Khub Chand, Vipat, and Panna Lal with swords, causing grievous injuries. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence, while the injured party sought enhancement of the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC, as the doctor who opined about the injuries of Bhim Sain was not examined. The court mitigated the offence to Section 325 IPC, considering the depressed fracture suffered by Bhim Sain. The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC, but reduced the sentence from four years to three years, considering that the offence was triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of three years. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. The revision for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was justified in the absence of the doctor's testimony regarding the injuries of Bhim Sain? 2. Whether the sentence under Section 326 IPC was excessive? 3. Whether the motive for the attack was adequately established? 4. Whether the absence of independent witnesses affected the credibility of the injured witnesses? 5. Whether the revision for enhancement of sentence was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the conviction under Section 307 IPC could not be sustained due to the lack of expert opinion regarding the nature of Bhim Sain's injuries. The court relied on the principle that the extent of damage and nature of injuries can only be opined by the concerned doctor who examined or treated the injured person. 2. The court found the sentence under Section 326 IPC to be excessive, considering that the offence was triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of three years. The court reduced the sentence to three years, considering the gravity of the injuries and the fact that the appellants had no prior criminal record. 3. The court held that the motive for the attack was adequately established through the testimony of the injured witnesses, who stated that there was a dispute over a drain that went to the Panchayat and the appellants were dissatisfied with the decision. 4. The court noted the absence of independent witnesses but held that it did not necessarily discredit the testimony of the injured witnesses. The court emphasized the need to scrutinize the evidence of injured witnesses with care and caution in such cases. 5. The court dismissed the revision for enhancement of sentence, as it had already reduced the offence from Section 307 to 325 IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, mitigating the offence under Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC and reducing the sentence accordingly. The court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC, but reduced the sentence from four years to three years. The court also upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. The revision for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of Crl. Appeal 366-SB of 1996 (Sampuran Singh etc. v. The State of Haryana) and Crl. Revision 690 of 1996 (Bhim Sain v. Sampuran Singh and others), as the appeal and the revision have arisen from the judgment dated 14.5.1996 and order dated 16.5.1996, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted the appellants Sampuran Singh and Subhash under Sections 397, 326, 325, 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The appellants were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-; in default of payment of fine, each one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for four months. Appellants were also directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for four months. Further, the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 325 Indian Penal Code; in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo R.I. for two months. Further, the trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. They were further directed to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Through the revision, Bhim Sain as prayed for the enhancement of the sentences.
3. The parties are residents of village Pinangwan. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a Birdadari Panchayat took some decision on the dispute over the drain on 19.4.1992. The decision was not acceptable to Sampuran Singh, who challenged the authority of Bhim Sain, Member Panchayat, who is the son of Khub Chand. After the Panchayat was over, Sampuran Singh along with his son Subhash, appellants, arrived with swords and attacked Khub Chand. They also caused injuries with swords to Vipat and Panna Lal, who were the brothers of Khub Chand. Phoolwati and Ramo, daughter and wife, respectively, of Sampuran Singh hurled stones on the complainant-party. On hearing the noise, Girdhari Lal, brother of Khub Chand, as well as Rama and Hari Lal, along with some other persons, arrived at the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran away. The injured were taken to the hospital. On receiving the information, the police went to the hospital. Khub Chand made the statement before the police on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code. Investigation was conducted and accused were arrested. Swords were recovered from the possession of Sampuran Singh and Subhash, appellants. Blood-stained clothes of the injured were also taken into possession and those were sent to the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the accused were sent to the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 24.8.1992 committed the appellants and their companions Ramo and Phoolwati to the Court of sessions.
4. Vide order dated 25.9.1992, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, charge-sheeted the accused on the allegations that on 19.4.1992 at about 8 p.m. in the area of village Pinangwan, in furtherance of their common intention, they did an act to cause injuries to Bhim Sain with swords with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act had caused his death, they would have guilty of murder. Further the trial court framed charge against the appellants and their companions under Section 326 Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injury to Khub Chand by means of swords. The appellants were also charge-sheeted under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and
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
