Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Punchhi, J.
Bir Singh - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 896 of 1986.
Decided On : 11 August, 1986
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 326, 324, 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - INTERPRETATION OF GRIEVOUS HURT - APPLICATION OF CLAUSE SIXTHLY AND EIGHTHLY OF SECTION 320, INDIAN PENAL CODE - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RE-HEARING OF APPEAL ORDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for causing grievous hurt to the victim under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, however, failed to apply clause sixthly of Section 320, which designates permanent disfiguration of the head or face as grievous hurt. The appellate court, while considering the doctor's opinion that the injuries could have been fatal if not treated timely, acquitted the accused under Section 326, holding that there was no material to justify the opinion and that the injuries did not cause any bone fracture or dislocation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellate court erred in confusing clause sixthly and seventhly of Section 320, which resulted in the acquittal of the accused under Section 326. The court noted that the trial court had admitted evidence regarding the disfigurement of the victim's face but failed to apply clause sixthly of Section 320.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, by confusing clause sixthly and seventhly of Section 320? 2. Whether the trial court erred in not applying clause sixthly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, to the facts of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellate court erred in confusing clause sixthly and seventhly of Section 320, which resulted in the acquittal of the accused under Section 326. The court noted that clause sixthly of Section 320 designates permanent disfiguration of the head or face as grievous hurt, and that the evidence on record showed that the victim suffered permanent disfigurement of his face due to the injuries caused by the accused. 2. The court also held that the trial court erred in not applying clause sixthly of Section 320 to the facts of the case. The court noted that the trial court had admitted evidence regarding the disfigurement of the victim's face but failed to apply clause sixthly of Section 320.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the acquittal of the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and directed the appellate court to re-hear the appeal.
M.M. Punchhi, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 896 and 924 of 1986 since they arise out of the same order.
2. Bir Singh and Nirmal Singh accused stood trial before a Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jullundur for offences under Sections 326 and 324 with the said of Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The broad allegations against the accused were that both of them, while armed with naked kirpans, stopped Sohan Singh PW who was going on a cycle, and then caused him as many as seven injuries. The occurrence took place on 27.5.1982. The injured was examined by Dr. D.S. Toor, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Jullundur at 10.40 p.m. the same day. Those seven injuries are described hereafter :-
1. An incised wound 3" long and 1" wide on the face starting from the centre of the upper lip extending upward obliquely laterally to maxilary area the left side. Cheeks sliced off. Buccal cavity exposed and open. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. An incised wound 1" x 1" on the centre of the lower %p extending down to chin. Fresh bleeding was present.
3. An incised wound 3" x 1" on the dorsum of the left hand between the first and second metacarpal. X-4ay was advised.
4. Incised wound 2" x 1-1/2" on the left frontal area of the skull.
5. An incised wound 1" x 1-1/2" on the angle of the right mandible.
6. An incised wound 1" x 1" on the dorsum of the middele finger of the right hand.
7. An incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the dorsum of the right thumb.
All the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapons as they appear plainly. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were declared grievous. The doctors opinion further was that all the injuries on the person of Sohan Singh would have proved fatal to his life if timely medical treatment had not been given to him.
3. Now despite the doctor declaring injuries 1 and 2 grievous, which injuries were obviously on the face and cheeks of the victim stood sliced off, the learned trial Magistrate ignored to apply clause sixthly of Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face is designated as a grevious hurt under the said provision. The learned Magistrate rather applied clause eightly to conclude that grevious hurt had been caused to the victim. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits is also designated as grevious hurt. The word of the victim was accepted by the trial Magistrate that it were the petitioners who had caused him hurt. Accordingly, they were convicted for offences under Sections 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced variously.
4. The petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of Session which went to Shri G.S. Khurana, Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur. The learned Judge was persuaded to take the view that the opinion of Dr. Toor that if timely treatment had not been given to the injured, all injuries could have proved fatal to his life, could be taken at its face value. He went on to observe that there was absolutely no material which could justify this opinion. On that basis, he took the view to wipe out conviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. When confronted with the opinion of Dr. Toor declaring injuries Nos. 1 and 2 grevous, the learned Judge entertained a doubt in his mind that since there was no injury to any bone in respect of these injuries, these injuries could not be termed as grievous. On that analysis, he took the view that no offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, had been made out and he then maintained the conviction of the petitioners only for simple hurt under Section 324, Indian Penal Code.
5. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 896 of 1986 before this Court. At motion hearing, I issued suo motu notice for revision for altering the conviction back to section 326, Indian Penal Code. That is the subject matter of Criminal Revision Petition No. 924 of 1986. These matters have thus in
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
