Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.S-1105-SB of 2004 (O&M)
Atul
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 28/07/2015}
For the Appellant (s):Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, D.A.G. Haryana.
Headnote:Attempt of Murder--Acquittal--Statement of Doctor that injuries were dangerous and if timely medical aid had not been given to patient, he would have died, is not sufficient to draw the inference that the injury was dangerous to life.
Attempt of Murder--Acquittal--Intention--Occurrence had taken place without any pre-mediation or preparation rather, it was the spur of the moment--Therefore, it cannot be held that appellant had intention to cause death of complainant.
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt of Murder--Intention--It is to be seen as to whether the injuries on the person of complainant were caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if the accused had caused death of complainant, he would have been guilty of murder. (Para 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt of Murder--Acquittal--Nature of Injury--The injuries with kitchen knife were caused on the neck, chest and abdomen--Statement of Doctor that injuries were dangerous and if timely medical aid had not been given to patient, he would have died, is not sufficient to draw the inference that the injury was dangerous to life. (Para 23)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt of Murder--Acquittal--Intention--Occurrence had taken place without any pre-mediation or preparation rather, it was the spur of the moment--Therefore, it cannot be held that appellant had intention to cause death of complainant. (Para 20)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307--Attempt of Murder--Acquittal--Intention--The parties were not known to each other--The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment--The dispute was only over the providing disc connection--From all these facts, it cannot be safely inferred that the appellant had intention to kill the complainant--Accused acquitted u/s 307 IPC but convicted u/s 326 IPC (Para 25)
(E) Medical Jurisprudence--Stab Injury--A rupture/puncture was caused to some abdominal organ--If a rupture is very small, the nucous membrane becomes everted and closes the little opening and thus, prevent the escape of intestinal contents. (Para 26)
(F) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.326 & S.307--Grievous Hurt--Attempt to Murder--Reduction in Sentence--Conviction of petitioner altered from S.307 IPC to S.326 IPC as there was absence of intention to cause death--During pendency of appeal parties entered into compromise and now on visiting terms with each other--Sentence reduced to period already undergone of one month and seven days--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.432. (Para 30)
Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.:- Appellant Atul son of Om Parkash faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) along with his brother Chirag and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. For offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Brother of appellant namely Chirag was, however, acquitted.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 13.06.2001 at about 02.00 pm in the area of Model Town, Rewari. In his statement recorded on 16.06.2001, complainant-injured Sanjay had stated that on the day of occurrence, he had gone to connect the disc wire to Model Town, Rewari. When he reached near the house of Captain Ajay, the appellant and his brother met him. Appellant caught him from his neck from the back side while his brother caught hold of him. Appellant inflicted knife blows on his neck, back, left armpit and abdomen. The complainant raised ‘raula’ which attracted Subhash son of Kishan Singh and Deepak son of Satish, who got him relieved from the assailants. While leaving the spot, the assailants threatened to kill the complainant. Ramesh Chander, father of complainant got him admitted in the hospital.
3. The medical examination of complainant was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and the doctor found injuries on the neck, chest and abdomen of the complainant. Dr. Raj Kumar, Junior Resident, AIIMS, who conducted the medical examination of the complainant, could not be examined as he had left the Institute and his whereabouts could not be traced. The medico-legal report was proved by the prosecution by examining Dr. Viplav Mishra of AIIMS, New Delhi.
4. On 15.06.2001, telephonic intimation was received at Police Station Model Town, Rewari that complainant had been admitted with the injuries at AIIMS, New Delhi at which Head Constable Munshi Ram reached there and recorded the statement of complainant dated 16.06.2001(Ex.PA) and sent the same vide his endorsement Ex.PA/1 to the police station, whereupon formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. He then visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PA/4. The appellant was arrested on 18.06.2001. A knife produced by the appellant at the time of his arrest, was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. On receipt of opinion by Dr. Vipulav Mishra (PW3), declaring injury on the person of complainant Sanjay as ‘dangerous’, offence under Section 307 IPC was added and further investigation was conducted by Inspector Sabha Chand.
5. After completion of investigation, challan against the appellant was presented in the Court. As the final report submitted by the police disclosed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for trial to the Court of Sessions.
6. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide order dated 05.09.2001 charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. After recording the statement of one PW, brother of appellant namely Chirag alias Amit was ordered to be summoned as additional accused vide order dated 13.05.2002. On his appearance, amended charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellant and his brother Chirag to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sanjay, complainant and injured as PW5; Subhash eyewitness of the occurrence as PW6; PW3 Dr. Viplav Mishra of AIIMS, New Delhi, who gave opinion regarding the injury on the person of Sanjay (E
