Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
Didar Singh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S) No. 957 of 2004; Criminal Revision No. 1275 of 2004
Decided On : 23-05-2019
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 - The judgment discusses the application of sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving a violent altercation between two parties, highlighting the interpretation of the legal provisions and their influence on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a violent altercation between two parties, resulting in injuries to the victims. The accused were convicted and sentenced under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were guilty based on the evidence presented, including the motive for the crime and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the injuries, the motive for the crime, and the applicability of section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries inflicted were dangerous to life, the motive for the crime was established, and the actions of the accused fell within the definition of section 307 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was maintained, and their sentences were modified. One appellant was released on probation, and compensation was awarded to the injured parties.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
1. This judgment shall decide aforementioned appeal and revision petition as both are directed against the same judgment of conviction dated 17.4.2004 and order of sentence dated 19.4.2004, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 13.5.2000 Hari Singh son of Tara Singh, his brother Joginder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and nephew Jaspal Singh son of Joginder Singh were sitting in the fields of Joginder Singh. Their servants Goga Masih and Jeeta Masih were also present. At about 7.00 p.m., Joginder Singh sent his servants Goga Masih and Jeeta Masih to Kulwant Singh for bringing the Patta (belt) of the engine from the fields of Didar Singh. After some time Goga Masih came running and told them that Didar Singh and his son Rupinder Singh had forcibly detained Jeeta Masih and were beating him. On hearing this, Joginder Singh and his son Jaspal Singh hurriedly went to the fields of Didar Singh, where they saw Didar Singh and Rupinder Singh beating up Jeeta Masih whereas other accused Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was standing with a datar in his hand and Joginder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was armed with a gandasi. On being asked why they were beating Jeeta Masih, Didar Singh raised a lalkara that these people be taught a lesson for opposing him in Sarpanch election. He caught hold of a datar and caused injuries to Joginder Singh. Rupinder Singh also caused injuries to him with a gandasi. Bikramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh caused an injury on Jaspal Singh with a datar then Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh also caused injuries on Jaspal Singh with a datar. Rupinder Singh also caused injuries with gandasi on Jaspal Singh. This incident was witnessed by Jeeta Masih and Hari Singh. On hearing the noise, Sarpanch Sukhdev Singh also reached at the spot and thereafter, accused persons ran away. The injured were then admitted to hospital and their medico legal examination was done.
3. Fir No.61 dated 14.5.2000, was registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, under sections 307, 326 324, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (for short "IPC") regarding the aforementioned incident. Five persons were named as accused. During the course of the trial accused Bikramjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh passed away on 23.3.2004 resulting in abatement of proceedings against him. On conclusion of the trial, the remaining four accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:-
| Name of the accused | Section of IPC | RI | Fine | I/D of payment of fine |
| Didar Singh | 148 307 307 r/w 149 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 | 01 year 07 years 02 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs.100/- Rs.5000/- Rs.1000/- Rs.100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 06 months RI for 01 month RI for 15 days |
| Bikramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh | 148 307 r/w 149 307 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 323 r/w 149 | 01 year 02 years 05 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs.100/- Rs.1000/- Rs.5000/- Rs.100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 01 month RI for 06 months RI for 15 days |
| Joginder Singh | 148 307 r/w 149 307 r/w 149 325 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 r/w 149 323 | 01 year 02 years 02 years 01 year 06 months 06 months 06 months | Rs.100/- Rs.1000/- Rs.1000/- Rs.100/- | RI for 15 days RI for 01 month RI for 01 month RI for 15 days |
4. Learned counsel for the appellants informed that Rupinder Singh son of Didar Singh had also passed away during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal filed by him had abated vide order dated 20.4.2017.
5. On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place in the field of Didar Singh appellant No.1. He also received injuries in the incide
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
