Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
Jasbir Singh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 497 of 2006
Decided On : 11-04-2019
Himanshu Rao, Adv., Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of common intention under Section 34 IPC and the nature of injuries in determining the guilt of the accused-petitioners.
Headnote:
IPC - Offences under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the offenses under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The key legal provisions of common intention under Section 34 IPC and the nature of injuries caused were crucial in influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were tried for offenses under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's case involved injuries inflicted on the complainant and others by the accused-petitioners. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners, which was partly modified by the appellate court. The petitioners then filed the present revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the appellate court and reduced their substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them. The court considered the nature of injuries, the totality of facts and circumstances, and the prolonged trial period in reaching its decision.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of injuries, common intention under Section 34 IPC, and the quantum of sentence for the accused-petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the injuries inflicted were not caused at the spur of the moment and upheld the conviction. However, considering the prolonged trial period and the time already undergone by the petitioners, the court reduced their substantive sentence.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the case by upholding the conviction of the petitioners and reducing 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 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2002, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rajpura, held accused-petitioner Gurdas Singh guilty under Section 325 IPC, whereas the remaining accused-petitioners were held guilty under Section 325 read Section 34 IPC. Accused-petitioner Jasbir Singh was held guilty under Section 324 IPC, whereas the remaining accused were held guilty under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused-petitioners were 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
325 IPC
2-1/2 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 accused-petitioners Harbans Singh and Bhajan Singh of the offences under Sections 324 and 325 IPC, whereas their conviction and sentence under Section 324/34 IPC was maintained. Sentence of accused Jasbir Singh under Section 325/34 IPC was reduced from 2-1/2 years to 1-1/2 years and that of under Section 324 IPC was reduced from RI for one year to RI for nine months. His conviction and sentence under Section 323/24 IPC was maintained. Sentence of accused Gurdas Singh under Section 325 IPC was reduced from 2-1/2 years to 1-1/2 years, whereas his sentence under Section 323/34 IPC was ordered to be maintained and that under Section 323/34 IPC was reduced from RI for one year to RI for nine months. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 28.3.1994, MLRs of Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh and Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh, residents of village Ram Nagar Sania, were received. On receipt of the said MLRs, ASI Salinder Singh, went to A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura, and recorded the statement of injured Dharam Singh son of Gurdit Singh. Dharam Singh stated that on 27.03.1994, in the marriage of Kaka Singh son of Ajmer Singh, his son Sukhwinder Singh, went to see the 'Band'. He came back after some time and told that Gurdas Singh son of Sadhu Singh had slapped him. When at 9.00 p.m., Dharam Singh was going to the house of Ajmer Singh to make a complaint in this regard, then on the outer phirni of the village, Gurdas Singh met him. Dharam Singh asked Gurdas as to why he had beaten his son. Gurdas Singh told him that when the complainant did not vote to their party, then why had he come towards their side. When Dharam Singh told him that he and his family members would keep doing the same, then Gurdas Singh gave him a stick blow, which landed on the ring finger of his right hand. Another stick blow given by accused Gurdas Singh landed on his left elbow. He (Dharam Singh) started raising an alarm. In the meantime, Jasbir Singh son of Mohinder Singh armed with Gandasi came to the spot and inflicted Gandasi blow on his person, which landed on the right side of his head. Gurdas Singh inflicted his stick blows on him which landed on his right knee, whereas another stick blow had landed on his upper jaw. In the meantime, Rattan Singh son of Natha Singh came at the spot. Harbans Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Bhajan Singh son of Charan Singh armed with sticks also came at the spot. When Rattan Singh tried to rescue Bhajan singh, Harbans Singh had inflicted a stick blow on Rattan Singh, which landed on the back portion of his right arm. Another stick blow
