Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Salekh Chand and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2011
Decided On : 15-03-2019
IPC - Criminal Revision - Section 323, 427 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offenses under Section 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their interpretations. It highlighted the nature of injuries, the requirement of deliberate act and grievous hurt under Section 323, and the lack of reasoning for the commission of the offense under Section 427. The court also emphasized the applicability of Section 4 of the First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938, and its reformative object with a humanitarian approach.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the revisionists for offenses under Section 323 and 427 of IPC based on allegations of assault and causing damage to property. The revisionists claimed the injuries were simple in nature and the damages to the property were improbable. They also argued for protection under Section 4 of the First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries did not satisfy the conditions for conviction under Section 323 IPC and the story of property damage was improbable. It also noted the lack of proof regarding the nature of civil proceedings and the revisionists' entitlement for protection under Section 4 of the First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938.
Issues: The issues included the nature of injuries, the credibility of the allegations, and the applicability of Section 4 of the First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries did not meet the requirements for conviction under Section 323 IPC and the story of property damage was improbable. It also emphasized the reformative object of Section 4 of the First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938, and the need for extreme caution in exercising discretion under the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision partly, quashing the imprisonment sentences and substituting them with a penalty of Rs.2,000/- each. It also directed that failure to deposit the penalty would result in serving a one-month sentence.
1. The present Criminal Revision arises out of judgments of conviction, whereby, the present revisionists have been convicted for commission of the offences under Section 323 and 427 of IPC. By virtue of the judgment of conviction dated 13.08.2008, impugned in the Revision, each convict has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.200/- each has been imposed for the offences under Sections 323 and for 427 of IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. It was further directed that in an event if the accused revisionists fail to deposit the fine thus imposed by the conviction order, they will have to undergo, a further sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. This judgment of conviction of Trial Court dated 13.08.2008 was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2008, Salekh Chand and others Vs. State and others. The Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 18.12.2010, had dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the sentence as imposed by the Trial Court.
2. Before coming to any logical conclusion, it becomes necessary for this Court to deal with the brief set of allegations, which was initially levelled by the complainant as against the present revisionists, which was initiated by virtue of lodging of an F.I.R., which was registered as Case Crime No. 236/03, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. After, the commission of the offences on 07.10.2003, it was the case of the complainant that he attempted to lodge an F.I.R. against the present revisionists, but, since there was denial to register the same by the Police, he has filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2003 (Ex. Ka-1), on which, an order was passed by the Magistrate on 17th October, 2003, directing the SHO to register the F.I.R. and, consequently, the F.I.R. was lodged against the present revisionist on 25th October, 2003, as Case Crime No. 236 of 2003 at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar (Ex.Ka-5).
3. As per the allegation levelled against the present revisionists, they were charged of their alleged involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. and as per the allegations, the incident is said to have been occurred on 7th October, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., whereby, the revisionist No.1, being equipped with lathi; the revisionist No. 2, being equipped with danda and revisionist No. 3, being equipped with sariya (iron rod), are said to have assaulted the victim and Nathia, who was the fourth convict, joined the three accused persons and had inflicted the injuries by beating the victim by slapping and boxing him with the blows of fists.
4. The Medical examination was conducted by PW4 Dr. Braham Singh on 8th October, 2003 and as per his medical report, he has opined that the nature of the injuries, which have been suffered by the victim Rati Ram, who was shown to be of 60 years of age, had suffered from the injuries, which were of the following nature :
1. He has complained about the pain on the right side of his chest.
2. He has complained about the pain in his testes.
3. In the report, it was found that there were two scratches, on the person of victim which were 6 cm. and 4 cm. in size. Besides this, there was contusion on the right hip of the victim.
It was opined by the Doctor that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and it was further opined that the injuries were ½ days old.
5. However, in accordance with the opinion expressed by the PW4, Dr. Brahma Singh, all the injuries were shown to be of simple in nature. According to the case of the revisionists, there had been series of some civil litigation between them and the complainant’s family; there was an enmity amongst themselves due to which the incident dated 7th October, 2003 is said to have chanced. However, there is no detail of litigations, which was produced by the revisionists before C
AI
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
