Criminal Revision No.852 of 2003

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(i)

Criminal Revision No.852 of 2003

Date of Decision

29.09.2010

Daulat @ Rajiv

...... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

(ii)

Criminal Revision No.947 of 2003

Kalle @ Kuldeep and another

...... Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:

Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate,

with Mr.Devinderbir Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.852 of 2003.

Mr.R.A.Yadav, Advocate,

for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.947 of 2003

Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,

for the respondent-State.

*****

A.N.JINDAL, J:

Accused Daulat, Kali @ Kuldeep and Raju @ Rajpal

petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioners') were prosecuted for

causing injuries to Rakesh and Ramesh, consequently, they were tried for

the offences under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Ultimately,

vide judgment dated 16/17.04.2001, they were convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section

Criminal Revision No.852 of 2003

2

324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 326 IPC. However, the appeals

preferred by them, were dismissed on 17.04.2003.

Briefly stated, the facts are that on 06.08.1992, on receipt of the

medical ruqa from Government Hospital, Gurgaon, ASI Desh Raj went to

the hospital and recorded the statement of Ramesh, who disclosed that he

and his brother Rakesh Kumar were the property dealers. On 06.08.1992, at

about 8.15 p.m. when they were present at their office then the accused

came there and started abusing them. Accused Daulat took out a knife and

scuffled with his brother Rakesh. He stabbed on the right side of the chest

of Rakesh and tried to give second blow on the neck of complainant. The

other accused inflicted slaps and fist blows to the complainant. On raising

hue and cry, they fled away. On the aforesaid statement made by the

complainant, case was registered and investigated. Ultimately, the challan

was presented against all the three accused.

On finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were

charged under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution led evidence which was followed by the

statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was led in

defence.

On trial, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced

under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Their appeals were also dismissed.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

At the very outset, Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate, has

pointed out the illegality of the judgment in as much as the trial Court

framed the charges qua the injuries of Ramesh and not qua the injuries of

Criminal Revision No.852 of 2003

3

Rakesh and even the injuries of Rakesh were not put up to the accused in

their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, the accused could not

be convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC.

Having pondered over the arguments, I find myself in

agreement with the same. On scrutiny of the record, it transpires that all the

three accused were charged for the offences under Sections 324 and 326

read with Section 34 IPC for causing the injuries to Ramesh and no charge

was framed qua the injuries caused to Rakesh. The injury to Ramesh as per

MLR is reproduced as under:-

“There was fresh incised wound on neck 2 cm x .8 cm into skin

deep, 3 cms away from middle line on left side of neck, 6 cms

below middle of lower jaw vertically placed.”

Doctor declared the injuries on the person of Ramesh as simple

in nature whereas injury to Rakesh was found as grievous. Similarly, while

examining the statement under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., the accused were not

asked any question with regard to the injuries qua Rakesh, therefore, no

amount of evidence qua the injuries of Rakesh