Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Sarabjit Kaur — Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others — Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3280 of 2009
Decided on : 11-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Bhupinder Beniwal, Adv.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the criteria for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC and the consideration of the convicts' lack of previous criminal history.
Headnote:
Section 326 IPC - Conviction and Probation - The court found that the injuries did not amount to grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, leading to the conversion of the conviction to Section 324 IPC and the release of the convicts on probation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were initially convicted under Section 326/34 IPC for causing injuries with a blunt weapon, but the court found that the injuries did not amount to grievous hurt.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the medical reports and found that the injuries did not meet the criteria for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC. Considering the circumstances and the lack of previous criminal history, the court released the convicts on probation.
Issues: Conviction under Section 326 IPC, release on probation, compliance with personal bond and cost of litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The injuries did not meet the criteria for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, leading to the conversion of the conviction to Section 324 IPC and the release of the convicts on probation.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the order releasing the convicts on probation was upheld.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
-
The revision petition challenged the judgment that converted the original conviction from under Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC and granted the respondents' release on probation (!) (!) .
-
The initial conviction was under Section 326/34 IPC, with sentences of rigorous imprisonment and fines, while the respondents, both females and first-time offenders, faced additional sentences under Section 324 IPC (!) (!) .
-
The court examined medical evidence indicating that injuries caused did not meet the criteria for grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, as there was no evidence of permanent impairment or severe bodily pain lasting 21 days (!) (!) .
-
The nature of the injuries, as per medico-legal reports, was caused by blunt weapons, and there was no proof that injuries involved sharp edged weapons or resulted in grievous harm (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the incident occurred over 18 years prior, and the respondents had no prior criminal history, had already faced lengthy litigation, and had complied with conditions of good behavior and personal bonds (!) .
-
Considering the absence of grievous hurt, the first-time offender status, and the long passage of time, the court upheld the order for release on probation and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the decision of the lower court (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 6.10.2009, releasing the respondents-convicts on probation while converting their conviction from under Section 326 IPC to under Section 324 IPC.
2. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 01.12.2007, had convicted the respondents under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. However, for the offence under Section 324 IPC, respondent-Manjit Kaur was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, whereas respondent-Pardeep Kaur was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. However, they were ordered to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that initially the injured-petitioner was medically examined from Civil Hospital, Nakodar, where one lacerated wound on the anterior aspect of her left arm was found and the doctor opined that the injuries had been caused to her with blunt weapons. Thereafter the petitioner was admitted in Dang Hospital, Jalandhar, examined by Dr.J.S.Dang, who reported that Sarabjit Kaur petitioner had an incised wound having been caused by sharp edged weapon. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed that rapture of tendons, artery and nerves does not amount to grievous hurt. The Court also noticed that there is no evidence that injury upon her forearm had caused any permanent impairment of any of her joint or it had caused Sarabjit Kaur severe bodily pain for 21 days. In these circumstances, the learned court, after returning the finding, found that the offence under Section 326 IPC was not made out.
4. This Court has examined the record of the learned trial Court. Medico legal report of Sarabjit Kaur dated 15.07.2001 is part of the file. Nature of weapon, which has been used to cause injury, is clearly recorded as blunt weapon. It has also come in the evidence that when petitioner was admitted in Dang Hospital on 15.07.2001, the doctor had opened the stitched wound and carried out certain procedure. However, that itself would not prove that the petitioner had suffered grievous injury with a sharp edged weapon to fall within the purview of Section 326 IPC.
5. Both the convicts are females; first time offenders and there is no previous criminal history against them. The incident took place more than 18 years back i.e. on 15.07.2001. The convicts have already faced protracted litigation for over a period of 18 years. The respondents had already complied with personal bond furnished by them, as they were directed to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The respondents were also imposed cost of Rs.18,000/- each as cost of litigation which was directed to be paid to petitioner-Sarabjit Kaur.
6. In view of the above, this Court does not find the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, releasing the convicts on probation, is erroneous. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, in terms thereof.
