Back
2019 Supreme(UK) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Digar Singh S/o Pan Singh - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2010
Decided On : 27-02-2019
For the Revisionist :Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate.
For the State of Uttarakhand : Mr. A.K. Shah, A.G.A.
For the Complainant :Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in determining the appropriate sentence for the accused.
Headnote:
Revisionist - Criminal Assault - Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506/2 I.P.C. - Section 320 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist appealed against the judgment and order of conviction for offences under Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506/2 I.P.C. The incident involved the assault on the complainant's elder brother, resulting in grievous injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revisionist guilty of the offences under Sections 325 and 504 I.P.C. based on the evidence of the witnesses and medical reports. The court reduced the sentence from one year to six months considering the nature of injuries and the personal altercation between the parties.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of injuries, intention of the accused, and the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 I.P.C. and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to determine the appropriate sentence for the accused.
Final Decision: The court partly succeeded the revision, modifying the judgment and directing the revisionist to surrender for a reduced sentence of six months.
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The present Revision has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the judgment and order dated 15.05.2006 of conviction as passed by the Judicial Magistrate Almora in Criminal Case No. 56 of 2006, State Vs. Digar Singh, under Sections 324, 326, 504 and 506/2 I.P.C.
2. As a consequence of the order of conviction by the learned Trial Court dated 15.05.2006, the revisionist before this Court aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.05.2006, rendered by the Trial Court, had preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2006, Digar Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the appeal of the appellant and has confirmed the judgment of conviction of the Trial Court dated 15.05.2006.
3. As a result of order of conviction, the revisionist is sentenced for offences under Sections 325 and 504 I.P.C., the revisionist has been directed to undergo the sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1500/-, for commission of an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and he has been directed to undergo one month additional imprisonment in the event of failure to deposit the fine as imposed by the Trial Court. Further, for the offence committed under Section 504 I.P.C., the revisionist has been sentenced by the Appellate Court with two month additional imprisonment.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision is that an incident is said to have occurred on 5th August, 2002, whereby, the complainant’s elder brother Bishan Singh had gone to get gunny bags for filling in potatoes, it is alleged in the complaint that then at about 3:30 p.m., present revisionist reached at the spot, in question, and inflicted wounds on the complainant’s elder brother. Immediately on arrival of the elder brother, Diwan Singh of the victim Bishan Singh, the present revisionist is said to have assaulted him also. On hearing the hue and cry, Bishan Singh, who was working in the potato go-down came out and saw that the revisionist had all of a sudden started assaulting the elder brother of the complainant, due to which, he because unconscious and has fallen down on the floor. It is further reported that on account of excessive injuries, which were suffered in person by the elder brother of the complainant, he was admitted in the hospital and was medically examined. On arrival in the emergency department on 06.08.2002 at 1:15 a.m., he was medically examined and after the medical examination, a report has been submitted by the Doctor, who has examined him, wherein, at the same day it is reported that the elder brother of the complainant had suffered the following injuries :-
“(1) On removal of clots, one lacerated wound 1 cm x 3 cm x 0.5 cm. on the scalp 2 inches posterior to left ear with underlying swelling 2 inches x 2 inches.
(2) Abraded contusion size 3 cm x 5 cm, 2.5 cm. posterior to left ear.
(3) lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the left side of nose.
(4) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 05.5 cm. over upper lip just below the nose.
(5) Swelling, tenderness over noise bleeding through both the nostrils after removal of clot.
(6) Loss of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th teeth on upper left side.
(7) Laceration size 2 cm. x 3 cm. on oral side of lower lips on lift side.
(8) Contusion 3 cm. x 8 cm. on the front of neck with underlying swelling”
5. After providing the medical treatment to the victim, brother Diwan Singh lodged a report before Pargana Adhikari on 07.08.2002 directed Patwari Bhaisola to register the case under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 IPC against the revisionist. The matter was investigated and registered as Case Crime No. 2 of 2002 and on conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet being chargesheet No. 2 of 2002 dated 08.08.2002 was submitted before the Magistrate.
6. According to the opinion expressed by the Doctor in his report, who has examined the victim, he has submitted that the injuries as described in 2, 3, 4 and 7, they are simple in nature, caused by the blunt edged object, but as far
