IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
Sarabjit Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S No. 2353 of 2004
Decided On : 07-06-2023
Conviction - Sarabjit Singh - Sections 307, 324 IPC - [Sections 307, 324 IPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 307 IPC and emphasized the essential elements required to establish the offence. It highlighted the interpretation of 'dangerous to life' injuries and the importance of proving the accused's intention and motive. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC and instead established the offence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC against Sarabjit Singh, leading to a modification of the impugned judgment of conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation resulting in injuries to two individuals, leading to the filing of an FIR and subsequent trial. The prosecution presented medical evidence and witness testimonies to support the charges against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC but established the offence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC against Sarabjit Singh. The court also acquitted Dharam Singh of the charges due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around proving the accused's intention and the severity of the injuries to establish the offence under Section 307 IPC. Additionally, the involvement of the co-accused and the motive behind the altercation were also contested.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the accused's intention and the severity of injuries to establish the offence under Section 307 IPC. It also highlighted the need to consider motive, weapon used, and the nature of injuries in determining the accused's culpability.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned judgment of conviction, finding Sarabjit Singh guilty under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and acquitting Dharam Singh. Sarabjit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and pay fines as per the court's decision.
JUDGMENT :
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby, appellant Sarabjit Singh has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324 IPC alongwith default stipulations, whereas, appellant Dharam Singh was convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 307/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324/34 IPC alongwith default stipulations.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 06.00 p.m. on 15.02.2003, Kulwant Singh complainant was present near tea shop and he saw that Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh resident of village Bhagowal and Sarabjit Singh son of Major Singh resident of village Sultanpur Lodhi, who were coming from their houses to bus stand. On seeing them, Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha son of Dharam Singh hurled abuses on them and Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh asked him not do so. On this Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha gave a Kirpan blow to Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh, which hit him on his forehead. After that, Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha also gave Kirpan blow to Sarabjit Singh son of Major Singh, who had intervened to save the injured, namely, Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and the blow hit on his forehead. Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha, accused, ran way from the place of the occurrence alongwith his weapon. Two injured were shifted to the hospital, where, they were medico-legally examined. Two injuries were found on the person of Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and one was found on the person of Sarabjit Singh son of Major Singh, brother-in-law. Both the MLR were prepared on 15.02.2003 after getting medical aid, Sarabjit Singh son of Major Singh, injured had gone to his house whereas another injured Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for his treatment. The rukka was received in the police station and ASI Ram Kumar visited DMCH Ludhiana on 17.02.2023 and sought the opinion of the doctor with regard to the fitness of injured Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and he was declared unfit to make the statement. As a consequence, the statement of Kulwant Singh was recorded and the FIR in the present case was registered. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented under Sections 307, 324 and 34 IPC and since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was accordingly committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hospiarpur. After leading evidence produced in the shape of challan, the learned trial Court found a prima-facie case under Sections 307, 324 and 34 IPC against the accused and they were ordered to be charge sheeted as per that. Both the accused claimed innocence and the trial was held as per law.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
4. The prosecution examined PW1 Kulwant Singh complainant who supported the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR. His testimony was duly corroborated by PW2 Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh, injured and PW3 Sarabjit Singh son of Major Singh (injured). The prosecution examined PW6 Dr. Rajesh Mehta Medical Officer, who medico-legally examined Sarabjit Singh son of Jagir Singh and found the following injuries:
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's intention and the severity of injuries to establish the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Discharge stage limits court to prima facie case assessment without evidence scrutiny; 'dangerous to life' injury equals grievous hurt, but single abdominal sharp blow amid road rage insufficient for....
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, including the intention of the accused and the nature of the act, are crucial in determining guilt.
The court established that a conviction under section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent and the dangerous nature of injuries, which was not met in this case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.