Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1198
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shri Kant Tripathi, J.
Pritam Singh and another -Appellant
Versus
State -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1982
Decided On : 06-04-2010
S.Baneerji, G.S.D.Misra, A.G.A.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention or knowledge to cause death under Section 307 IPC and the application of relevant case law to determine the appropriate offense.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault - Section 307 IPC, Section 326 IPC, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the applicability of Section 307 IPC and concluded that the offense under Section 326 read with 34 IPC was made out. The judgment highlighted the requirement of intention or knowledge to cause death under Section 307 IPC and cited relevant case law to support the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants appealed against their conviction under Section 307 IPC for assaulting the injured. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, due to enmity, attacked the injured with a sharp-edged weapon, resulting in grievous injuries. The defense claimed that the appellant No. 1 had not played a significant role in the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution story believable and held that the charge under Section 307 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, it concluded that the offense under Section 326 read with 34 IPC was made out instead of Section 307 IPC, considering the lack of intention or knowledge to cause death.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the offense committed by the appellants, the applicability of Section 307 IPC, and the role of the appellant No. 1 in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the requirement of intention or knowledge to cause death under Section 307 IPC and the lack of repeated blows with the sharp-edged weapon, leading to the conclusion that the offense under Section 326 IPC was made out.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC and convicting the appellant No. 1 under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. The appellant was sentenced for the period already undergone and fined Rs. 5000, with a portion of the fine to be paid to the injured as compensation.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for respondent and perused the lower Court record.
2. The appellants Pritam Singh and Sukhvant Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.1.1982 rendered by the then IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1980 (State v. Pritam Singh and another) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted both the appellants under section 307 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.
3. According to the prosecution story, there was some enmity between the complainant Banta Singh and the appellants. Prior to the incident in question, the appellant No. 2 Sukhvant Singh had cut the paddy of the complainant Banta Singh about which he had complained to appellant No. 1. On this, the appellants Sukhwant Singh and his father Pritam Singh took it ill. On 3.11.1978 at about 5.30 p.m. the injured Kashmir Singh was returning from his fields to his house. The appellant No. 2, Sukhvant Singh armed with "Kanta" and appellant No. 1, Pritam Singh armed with 'lathi' were standing near the 'Peepal' tree. The appellant No. 2, Sukhvant Singh asked the appellant No. 1, Pritam Singh to catch the injured Kashmir Singh and then appellant No. 1, Pritam Singh suddenly caught hold of the injured Kashmir Singh and then appellant No. 2, Sukhvant Singh struck 'Kanta' on his head. On his shrieks, Banta Singh the complainant, Gurucharan Singh, son of Bakshi Singh of village Devrania who had come there to arrange labour and Banta Singh son of Surendra Singh of Mohanpur arrived there and challenged the appellants on which the appellants had run away. The injured Kashmir Singh was taken to the District Hospital, Pilibhit on a Tractor trolley where medical examination of his injuries was conducted. His injury report is Exihibit Ka. 2. Subsequently his X-ray was also done. The X-ray report is Exhibit Ka. 3 and X-ray plate is Exhibit 1. The doctor, who medically examined him, prepared the supplementary report of injuries on the basis of the X-ray report. The supplementary report is Exhibit Ka. 4, The complainant Banta Singh lodged an FIR of this incident at the police station Kotwali, Pilibhit which Exhibit Ka. 1, on which basis, the Police registered the case for investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.
4. The learned Trial Court charged both the appellants under section 307 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
5, During the trial three eye-witnesses were examined to prove the charges. P.W.-l Banta Singh happens to be the father of the injured and said to be eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W.-3, Kashmira Singh is the injured and P.W.-4 Santa Singh is also an eye-witness of the occurrence. These three witnesses have supported the prosecution story in the witness box.
6. P.W.-2 Dr. V.P. Agarwal had medically examined the injured, who has proved the injuries sustained by the injured and also the injury report, Exhibit Ka-3 and supplementary report, Exhibit Ka-4. The injured had sustained the following injuries:
Incised wound 7.0 x 2.0 cm x bone deep on the right side of head 7.0 cm. above right ear. The injury is trailing backwards. The margins are clean cut with fresh bleeding present. Kept under observation. Advised X-Ray.
Lacerated wound 2.0 x 1.0 cm. x muscle deep on left side of upper lip on the ma-cosal aspect.
7. The injury No. 1 was kept under observation and the injured was advised for X-ray. On X-ray of injury No. 1, a fracture was seen in the skull but there was no abnormality in the abdomen and chest.
8. P.W. 2, Dr. V.P. Agarwal on the basis of the X-ray report as well as the supplementary report stated that the injury no. 1, which was a fracture, was grievous in nature and was sufficient to cause d
