Major Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3177

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Major Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S NO. 484-SB of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate; For the Appellantin CRA-S-484-SB of 2007/Respondent No.2 (in CRR-716-2007).
Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CRR-716-2007).
For the Respondents: Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 - Conviction for attempted murder and other offences - The accused was found guilty of grievously injuring the complainant in an altercation motivated by a prior grudge. Conviction upheld based on direct evidence from the injured party and corroborative medical findings. The accused's claim of false implication dismissed due to lack of credible independent witnesses. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of assaulting the complainant with a kirpan, causing multiple grievous injuries, including total amputation of the complainant's right hand, during a dispute connected to a prior incident. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The evidence fulfilled the criteria for conviction under the IPC sections cited, affirming that the injuries were severe enough to warrant the charge of attempted murder. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: The primary issues included the adequacy of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the credibility of eyewitness accounts, and whether the delay in filing the FIR compromised the prosecution's case. (Paras 10, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the weight of the direct testimony of the injured party, underscoring that the presence of a credible eyewitness with direct knowledge of the events negates concerns over procedural delays. The intention to cause serious harm was established by the nature of the injuries inflicted. (Paras 22, 25)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentences upheld.

Table of Content
1. details of the case and conviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments challenging the prosecution's case (Para 10 , 16 , 21)
3. court's evaluation of witness credibility (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court's stance on evidentiary standards (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court's findings on intent to kill (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. final decision and order of the court (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This judgment shall dispose of CRA-S-484-SB-2007 and CRR- 716-2007, as they both are interconnected and arising out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2007. However, for the sake of brevity the facts are being extracted from CRA-S-484-SB-2007.

2. Criminal Appeal i.e. CRA-S-484-SB-2007, was filed by appellant Major Singh, aged about 44 years (as per the impugned judgment), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2007, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (for brevity 'Ld. Trial Court'), in Sessions Case No. 16 of 24.10.2005, arising out of FIR No.93, dated 04.07.2005, under Sections 307 , 326, 324, 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), registered at Police Station Mahilpur (Hoshiarpur).

Accused-appellant was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 , 326, 324, 323 of IPC, and was ordered to undergo sentence(s), as detailed in the following table:-

Name of Convict	Under Section	Sentence	Fine	In Default
Major Singh	307 IPC	07 years RI	Rs. 25,000/-	06 months RI
	As the accused has been sentenced under the major head, no separate sentence under Section 326 IPC need to be recorded.
	324 IPC	09 months RI	--	--
	323 IPC	04 months RI	--	--

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant, if any, was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence. After recovery of fine amount, Rs.20,000/- as compensation amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant/injured as part compensation for the injuries suffered by him.

3. Story of the prosecution, as discussed in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment, is reproduced as under:-

"Complainant Santokh Singh was resident of Village Ispur and was agriculturist by profession and was constructing a new house in the village; that on the fateful day of 1st July, 2005 at about 9.15 a.m. he had proceeded on the cycle for asking the concerned person to send the sand in connection with the construction and when reached in the outer street of the village in which the house of the accused Major Singh was situated and found that the main gate of the house of Major Singh was shut; that the complainant met his daughter Gurjit Kaur and went ahead to a short distance reaching in front of the house of Major Singh, when Major Singh came out of his house and pushed his (Major Singh's) cycle from the gate of the house in such a manner to strike the same with the cycle of the complainant because of which Major Singh brought kirpan from inside the house, without sheath and attacked the complainant by striking blow but the complainant lifted his right hand to ward off the blow because of which his right hand was amputated and fell down; that second kirpan blow was struck, which landed below the elbow of the complainant and the complainant retraced his steps and the third kirpan blow landed below the right shoulder and thereupon the complainant took a turn for slipping away but accused gave a kirpan blow on the head but it missed the aim and caused injury at the back of the complainant and the complainant fell down and the remaining injuries were caused on the person of the complainant in that position; that daughter of the complainant raised alarm 'killed, killed' and thereupon accused Major Singh slipped away and daughter of the complainant after making arrangement for transportation took him to Civil Hospit