Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2013
Sunder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MS JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge is to the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, whereby charge under Section 308 IPC, instead of Section 307 IPC, has been framed against the accused.
The FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered on the statement made by Sunder-petitioner alleging that on 26.03.2012, he and his wife were returning home from their fields on their tractor. When they reached near the house of Karan son of Chhitar, a three wheeler was Prasher Ajay parked in the street by Bhupender @ Monu-respndent No.1. He was 2013.11.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 2 asked to remove the said three wheeler, whereupon he startedhurling abuses. The petitioner-complainant tried to pass his tractor-trolley from a side, but in the process, it touched the three-wheeler on its indicator. He offered to bear the expenses of the damage of the threee wheeler. In the meantime, Rakesh @ Bindu-respondent No.2 gave an iron 'khundala' blow on his head from the sharp side. Bhupender brought out an iron rod from three wheeler and gave a blow on their right temple of the complainant. Thereafter, Mitlesh came there and gave a lathi blow on the wrist of his left arm. The complainant-petitioner started running, but karan gave an iron rod blow on his left wrist and Rajpal @ Bona gave a danda blow from the front side on his head. Thereafter, the complainant fell down. Then, his wife-suman raised an alarm, which attracted his other family members. Thereafter, all the assailants ran away from the spot along with their weapons. While leaving the spot, Karan Singh snatched gold chain and ear ring from Suman, wife of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking quashing of the charge framed under Section 308 IPC vide order dated 13.012.2012 on the ground that the complainant-petitioner had suffered three injuries on his head and as per the opinion of Neurosurgeon, injury No.1 on the head of the complainant was grievous in nature and could be dangerous to life, if not operated in time. Therefore, the accused- respondents should have been charged under Section 307 IPC and not under Section 308 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that thenature and gravity of the injuries shows that the Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 intention of the accused was to kill the complainant-petitioner. The trial I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 3 Court has failed to appreciate the report of the Medical Board, constituted at PGI, Rohtak on 25.04.2012, according to which, injury No.1 was dangerous in nature. He has further stated that the intention of the accused to cause injuries on the complainant was pre-planned, because Bhupender Singh initially parked his three wheeler in the street and when the complainant asked him to remove the said vehicle, he refused to do so. Thereafter, when the complainant tried to pass from the side of the three wheeler, his trolly touched the three wheeler at its indicator. Then, all the accused inflicted injuries upon the complainant.
After going through the FIR, the complainant has nowhere stated that there was any previous enmity with the accused- respondents or that he knew them. It was a sudden quarrel over a trivial issue when the tractor-trolley, which the complainant was driving in the street, hit the three wheeler of Bhupender Singh. On this, he got angry and inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. The narration of the facts in the FIR do not make out a case that the accused had any intention to kill him over a trivial issue of tractor-trolley hitting the three wheeler. As per the report of the Medical Board, constituted at PGIMS, Rohtak, injury No.1 on the person of the complainant is dangerous in nature and injury No.2 is declared to be simple. Both the injuries have been caused by blunt weapons. As per the allegations in the FIR, a blow with iron 'khundala' was given on the head of the complainant from its sharp side, whereas as per the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries on the head of the complainant were given with blunt weapon.
Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and In view of this fact, as well as the fact that the incident had integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 4 taken place on a trivial issue of tractor-trolly striking against the three wheeler of accused-Bhupender, could lead to only one conclusion that on a trivial issue, a fight had taken place and injuries have been suffered by the complainant with blunt weapon. Therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 395, has examined a case, where the accused gave a stab wound on the abdomen of victim with a small kirpan (gatra) and as per the opinion of the doctor, the injury was dangerous to life. It was held that no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out, as the words "dangerous to life"
are equivalent to "endangering life". In paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed as under:-
"35. The same view was expressed by this Court in case Tej Ram v. The state of Punjab, 1987 (1) RCR (Criminal) 611: 1978 (6) CLR, 76 and State of Punjab v. Tara Singh, 1987 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 184, that injury described by the doctor as 'dangerous to life' and if not treated i.e. to say that but for timely and medical aid the injured was likely to die. Such type of injury/opinion is not the type of the injury as would attract the provisons of Section 307 Indian Penal Code, which envisages an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, such injury would fall within the ambit of clause Eighthly of Section 320 Indian Penal Code, would be punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and in view of such opinion, charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgments mutatis- mutandis is applicable to the facts of this case."
Similarly, in Nand Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801, this Court has held that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the intention to commit murder of the injured has to be Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and very clear and this intention could be gathered either from the act of the integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 5 accused or from the impact of the injuries. In the aforesaid case, the accused had inflicted 17 injuries on the victim with dagger and according to doctor, 9 injuries were dangerous to life, but he did not described any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, essential ingredients, required for bringing the offence under Section 307 IPC, were lacking and the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC. In the aforesaid judgment, it was further observed as under:-
"15. To bring an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had an intention to commit murder of injured. This intention could be gathered either from the act of the accused or from the impact of the injuries. Nowhere in the statement madeby Manjit Singh before ASI Gurmit Singh, it was alleged that the appellant had caused injuries to Manjit Singh with an intention to kill him. Though Dr. Mon Abrahm PW-7 deposed that injuries Nos. 4, 6 and 11 to 17 were dangerous to life but he didnot describe any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the necessary ingredients required for bringing the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, were lacking in the present case. However, injuries Nos.4, 6 and 11 to 17 were such which endangered the life of the victim. All of them were caused with sharped pointed weapon i.e. dagger. This would bring the offence to one under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside and instead, he ought to be convicted under Section 326 Indian Penal Code.
In the facts of the present case, the fight had taken place on a trivial issue of sudden provocation in the street when the tractor-
trolley of the complainant hit the three wheeler of accused Bhupender.
The injuries were not given by sharp edged weapon. Both the injuries were given with blunt weapon and as per the opinion of the Medical Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 Board, injury No.1 was dangerous to life. The injuries were not I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 413 of 2013 (O&M) 6 sufficient to cause death of the injured.
Resultantly, in the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI) 21.11.2013 JUDGE ajp Prasher Ajay 2013.11.26 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh