Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
Dharam Singh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 498 of 2006
Decided On : 11-04-2019
P.S. Sullar, Adv., Gautam Dutt, Adv., Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Adv.
The severity of injuries, presence of common intention, and the nature of weapons used are crucial factors in determining the guilt and appropriate sentencing in cases involving offenses under Sections 326, 324, and 323/34 IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Offences under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 - 326, 324, 323/34 IPC - The court discussed the offenses under Sections 326, 324, and 323/34 IPC and their implications. The key legal provisions of these sections were interpreted in the context of the injuries caused and the weapons used by the accused. The court's decision was influenced by the severity of the injuries and the nature of the weapons used.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were tried for offenses under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. The incident involved a fight between the accused and the complainant's party, resulting in injuries to the complainant and others.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offenses under Sections 324 and 323/34 IPC, while acquitting them of the offense under Section 326/34 IPC. The substantive sentence of the petitioners was reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the injuries, the presence of common intention among the accused, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the injuries inflicted on the complainant and others were severe and not caused at the spur of the moment. It also considered the presence of sharp and blunt weapons, indicating prior preparation. The court decided to reduce the substantive sentence based on the totality of the facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the petitioners and reduced their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioners were tried for committing the offences punishable under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2002, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajpura, held petitioner-accused Dharam Singh guilty under Section 326 IPC, whereas the remaining accused-petitioners guilty under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioner Sukhwinder Singh was held guilty under Section 324 IPC whereas the remaining accused-petitioners were held guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused-petitioners were further held guilty under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were accordingly, sentenced as under:-
Under Section
Imprisonment
Fine
In default of payment of fine
326 IPC
3 years RI
Rs.500/- each
To undergo RI for 30 days
324 IPC
1 year RI
Rs.300/- each
To undergo RI for 20 days
323/34 IPC
6 months
200 each
To undergo RI for 10 days
2. Aggrieved there-against, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala. Vide judgment dated 24.02.2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while partly allowing the appeal, acquitted the accused-petitioners of the offence under Section 326/34 IPC. However, their conviction under Sections 324 and 323/34 IPC was upheld. Consequently, sentence of accused-petitioner Dharam Singh was ordered to be read under Section 324 IPC and that of the remaining accused under Section 324/34 IPC. However, the sentence for the offence under Sections 324 and Section 324/34 IPC was reduced from one year to nine months. The sentence of petitioners-accused Mehma Singh and Rattan Singh was ordered to be read under Section 323 and that of Dharam Singh and Sukhwinder Singh under Sections 323/34 IPC for the period for which they had been sentenced by the trial Court.
3. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 28.3.1994, ASI Shalinder Singh after getting registered a connected case against Jasbir Singh and others, recorded statement of Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh to the effect that on 27.3.1994 at about 8.00 p.m., he and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh, had been seeing the 'Band' in the marriage of Kaka Singh son of Ajmer Singh. Sukhwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh came there to see the 'Band' and after getting himself mixed with the 'Band' people, he started dancing. He was stopped by Gurdas Singh son of Sadhu Singh from doing that, whereupon Sukhwinder Singh left the place in anger. At about 9/9.30 p.m., Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh, Sukhwinder Singh son of Dharam Singh armed with Gandasis, Mahima Singh son of Gurdit Singh and Rattan Singh son of Sadhu Singh armed with sticks came at the outer phirni in front of the house of Ajmer Singh. Dharam Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) for teaching a lesson for stopping his son Sukhwinder Singh from dancing with the band people. The complainant (Jasbir Singh) asked Dharam Singh not to pick up a quarrel. They had party factions due to Panchayat Election. Thereupon, Dharam Singh gave Gandasi blow, which landed in the middle of his head. Mahima Singh inflicted a lathi blow, which hit the right shoulder of the complainant, besides giving another blow on the backside of his waist. On his raising alarm to rescue him, Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh came forward, but Sukhwinder Singh inflicted a Gandasi blow on the right side of the head of Bhajan Singh. Rattan Singh gave a stick blow on the left shoulder of Bhajan Singh. All the accused started raising their voice loudly. On hearing the said voice, Mam Chand son of Ram Ditta and Jaspal Singh son of Lal Singh came there, whereupon the accused fled from the spot. The reason for causing the aforesaid injuries, was that the father of Jasbir Singh, namel
