Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Surinder Kaur - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents - Respondent
CRR-563 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Section 326 IPC - Amendment of Charge - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [Section 216 Cr.P.C., Section 326 IPC] - The court discussed the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the legal provisions related to causing grievous hurt. It highlighted the importance of considering the FIR version and the nature of the injury in deciding whether to alter the charge. The court referred to previous cases to emphasize that the charge should be as wide as possible and can be altered at any stage before the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-complainant sought to amend the charge under Section 326 IPC due to the nature of the injury caused by respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was initially charged under Sections 323 and 325 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injury in question was grievous in nature and caused by an iron rod with a sharp edge, warranting the addition of Section 326 IPC. It emphasized that the charge should be as wide as possible and can be altered at any stage before the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge under Section 326 IPC should be added based on the nature of the injury and the weapon used.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge should be as wide as possible and can be altered at any stage before the judgment. It emphasized the importance of considering the FIR version and the nature of the injury in deciding whether to alter the charge.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to frame the charge against respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 326 IPC.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, whereby an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for amendment/addition of charge under Section 326 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No.132, dated 24.09.2015, registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, has been declined.
2. FIR was lodged on the complaint of Smt. Surinder Kaur (petitioner herein), as per which on 04.09.2015 at about 12.15 p.m., respondent Nos.2 and 3 had released the water from their house towards her house. She asked them to stop the water flow, in response to which respondent Nos.2 and 3 pushed her. She fell down. Respondent Ramesh Kumar (wrongly mentioned as Rakesh Kumar in the memo of parties) then hit an iron rod, which was pretty sharp on its edge at her hand; whereas Ashok Kumar gave punches to her. She shouted for help, at which her son Manjit Singh came to the spot. The assailants fled away.
3. After necessary investigation, challan was filed to prosecute respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 323 and 325 read with 34 IPC. The two respondents were charge-sheeted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class under the said Sections 323, 325/34 IPC.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that during trial, Dr. (Maj.) Sheetal Jindal appeared twice and made statements revealing the nature of injury on the person of petitioner to be grievous in nature. The said injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which is clearly mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel has drawn attention towards the photograph (Annexure P-3) revealing that phalanx of two fingers of the left hand of the petitioner were completely severed, thus attracting Section 326 IPC. Learned counsel contends that in the circumstances, the dismissal of the application for alteration of charge, so as to add Section 326 IPC, is illegal.
5. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that as per the medico-legal report and the statement of PW Dr. (Maj) Sheetal Jindal, the injury in question was caused by blunt weapon and therefore, learned Trial Court did not commit any error in declining to add Section 326 IPC.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused the record.
7. As per statement Annexure P-5 of Dr. (Maj.) Sheetal Jindal, the injury caused to the petitioner-complainant is as under: -
“Avulsion of distal phalanx of both fourth and fifth digits of left hand completely. Tenderness present. Fresh bleeding present.”
8. The statement of Dr. (Maj.) Sheetal Jindal reveals further that she reserved her opinion regarding the kind of weapon pending for orthopedic opinion along with the X-ray report. However, police again approached to seek her opinion about the nature of injury and then she opined that as per her knowledge, the injury appeared to be grievous and clinically seemed to be crush injury, whose margins were not clear and so, weapon seemed to be blunt in nature.
9. It is, thus, clear that the opinion given by Dr. (Maj.) Sheetal Jindal was not based on the advice of the orthopedic surgeon as was advised by her earlier.
10. It is not in dispute that injury in question is grievous. The FIR version is quite clear that injury was caused by an iron rod, which was having pretty sharp edge.
11. In “Karam Singh v. Naresh and others” CRM-M-42223 of 2016 (O&M), decided by this Court on 22.11.2018, the allegation was that accused had hit gandasi blow on the nose of the complainant. The MLR revealed the kind of weapon used for causing the injury as blunt. The Trial Court framed the charge under Section 325 IPC, as the injury was described to be a lacerated wound and gandasi was not shown to have been used from reverse side. It was held by trial court that if gandasi is used from the side of its handle or wooden portion, then it would not fall within the meaning of weapon of offence used for shooting, stab
The charge should be as wide as possible and can be altered at any stage before the judgment, based on the nature of the injury and the FIR version.
The court established that the use of a dangerous weapon resulting in grievous hurt satisfies the criteria for conviction under Section 326 IPC, while the absence of intent to commit further offenses....
The court established that it can alter charges under Section 216 CrPC based on evidence, ensuring no prejudice to the accused, even after the trial has commenced.
The court established that causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon fulfills the criteria for conviction under Section 326 IPC, supported by sufficient evidence.
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
