Delhi High Court
Chaman Singh vs State on 14 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIAD(DELHI)57, 1999(49)DRJ182
Author: J.B.Goel
Bench: J.B. Goel
ORDER J.B.Goel, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 17.8.1998 and order dated 19.8.1998 and has been sentenced to RI of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2500/ and in default of payment of fine further SI for 3 years. The appellant has come in appeal against the said judgment and order.
2. Briefly, the facts are that injured Kumari Shabnam used to go to learn typing in DAV Model School at Yusuf Sarai. The appellant used to follow her. He was employed with her father. On her complaint about it, her father terminated his services. He continued to so follow and harass her. Due to his this misbehaviour, she started going to the school in the company of her two friends, Ranjana and Harvinder Kaur. On the day of occurrence i.e. 31.3.1993 she along with her said two friends was going as usual to the said school when at about 7.45 a.m. on the way the appellant all of a sudden appeared from behind armed with the knife like weapon Ex. P/1 and gave blows with it causing multiple injuries on her neck, head, back (chest) and arm. The injured fell down, profusely bleeding and was removed to the AIIMS Hospital by Ranjana. On hearing hue and cry and cries of bachao bachao, some persons from the passing bus came to her rescue, caught hold of the appellant with the knife; a PCR van which was on duty at the nearby Red Alert Point on hearing the cries also rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused with the knife Ex. P/1. Information was also conveyed by the PCR to local police. SI Asab Singh with Ct. Niranjan Singh reached the spot and found that the injured had already been removed to the AIIMS; he went to the hospital, collected the two MLCs of Shabnam and Ranjana (who was also injured in the incident). Shabnam was found unfit to make statement. Ranjana made first information statement about the occurrence on the basis of which SI Asab Singh got the FIR registered. The accused was arrested and the knife was seized by the said S.I. at the spot.
3. The accused was prosecuted and charged for offence under Section 307 IPC.
4. During trial the prosecution has examined injured Shabnam (PW1), her two friends Harvinder Kaur (PW2) and Ranjana (PW4). PW1 Shabnam supported the prosecution case whereas PW2 and PW4 corroborated her testimony. PW7 Dr. Bitra George, who was Medical Officer on Emergency duty at the Casualty in AIIMS had first examined the injured and noted down the injuries in MLC Ex. PW7/A and had referred the injured for emergency operation. PW3 H.C. Sardar Singh and PW10 HC Harish Chand who were on duty at PCR van nearby had reached the spot on hearing the cries of the girls; they had apprehended the accused and seized the knife Ex.P1 at the spot. PW11 SI Asab Singh, IO along with PW9 Ct. Niranjan Singh had reached the spot and PW11 at the Hospital (AIIMS) had recorded the first information statement of PW4, got the FIR registered, arrested the accused and seized the knife at the spot. The accused had taken the plea of false implication. The learned trial court believed the prosecution evidence, held the appellant guilty and convicted him as aforesaid.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the correctness of the findings about the time, place and circumstances of the occurrence and the appellant being the assailant. Nor about recovery of the weapon of offence Ex. P1 from the appellant. However, he has contended that the surgeon who had operated upon the injured has not been examined nor the medical record thereof has been produced and the nature of injuries has not been proved and as such offence under Section 307 IPC is not proved and only an offence under Section 324 IPC is made out; and that the appellant at the time of the occurrence was below the age of 21 years he is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He has relied on State of Punjab Vs. Bant Singh & Anr. 1996 Cri.L.J. 3886 (P & H); 1998 II AD (Cri) Delhi 577; Rajesh @ Vimal Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1995 JCC 148; Narinder Kumar Vs. State (Delhi) 1980 CC Cases 62 (Delhi); Ashok Kumar Vs. State 1994 JCC 522 (Delhi); Om Parkash Vs. The State 1998 II AD (Cri.) Delhi 21; Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman Vs. State (Delhi) 1994 JCC 689; Ganga Ram Vs. State 1968 Cri.L.J. 134 (Rajasthan); Ram Chander Vs. State 1991 (2) R. Cri. Rep. 665 (Delhi), Rajinder Singh Vs. State, 1997 JCC 98 (Delhi); Ved Parkash Vs. State of Haryana 1981 Cri.L.J. 161; Satyabhan Kishore and Another Vs. The State of Bihar 1972 Crl.L.J 1042 (SC); Musakhan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Masarullah Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, .
6. Whereas learned counsel for the State has contested these contentions and has contended that the nature of injuries has been proved by Dr. Bitra George PW7 who had examined the injured on her being admitted in emergency and had noted the injuries in the MLC prepared by him and he has also given the nature of injuries as grievous and dangerous to life, inter alia, on basis of his own observations which he was in a position to give and in view of his evidence it cannot be said that the nature of injuries has not been proved. Moreover, the knowledge or intent of the accused required for offence under Section 307 IPC has been established from the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record which has established that the appellant intended to cause the death of the injured. The circumstances are that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, followed the injured and inflicted multiple injuries even on vital parts without any excuse which coupled with the motive established would prove his requisite intention. It is also contended that he is not entitled to probation on facts and in law. He has relied on State of Gujarat Vs. V.S. Chauhan and State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Chander 1995 SCC (Cri.) 249.
7. PW1 Shabnam (resident of R9A, Hauz Khas) is the injured. She has deposed that the accused appellant in the year 1993 used to reside near her house and was employed at the shop of her father; she used to go to learn typing at DAV Model School, Yusuf Sarai everyday at about 7.30 a.m. along with her two friends Harvinder and Ranjana who also used to learn typing there. The accused used to chase her every day upto the school and did not desist from doing so inspite of her protests. She had made complaint about it to her father and her father terminated his services; for this reason the accused was inimical towards her and this was the reason for assault; on 31.3.93 she along with her aforesaid two friends Harvinder and Ranjana was going as usual for learning typing when on the way near SFS Gate at about 7.45 a.m. the accused suddenly came, caught her from hairs (choti) and started assaulting her with knife Ex.P1 on her head and neck; when she tried to ward off his attacks with her arms she also received injuries at her hands; Ranjana stopped a vehicle and removed her to AIIMS; that the accused assaulted her because of bitterness for her having complained to her father and his father having terminated his services. She has identified her blood smeared shirt Ex. P2 seized in AIIMS and her bag Ex. P3 and pair of belly Ex. P4 seized from spot. She denied that she had a love affair with the accused or used to write letters or letters marks A and B are written by her to him or that she has falsely implicated him. PW2 Harvinder and PW4 Ranjana have corroborated her. PW2 Harvinder Kaur has deposed that she along with PW1 and PW4 used to go together to learn typing at about 7.30 a.m.; on 31.3.1993 they were going as usual for learning typing when the accused suddenly came there; caught hold of Shabnam from her hairs (choti) and started assaulting her with knife Ex.P1 on her neck and hands. She and Ranjana raised hue and cry and also tried to rescue her but in vain. A bus was stopped and some commuters from the bus came down to their rescue and nabbed the accused and thrashed him and Ranjana removed Shabnam to Hospital. Earlier also the accused used to chase and tease the injured. She has denied the suggestion that Shabnam used to write letters or letters mark A and B are in the hand of Shabnam or that she was deposing falsely or that accused was not the assailant. PW4, Ranjana has also deposed that she along with Shabnam and Harvinder used to go for learning typing; and on the day of occurrence near DDA Flats the accused suddenly came from back side, caught Shabnam from her hairs (choti), stabbed her repeatedly with knife Ex. P1 at her neck, arms and chest resulting in bleeding profusely and she fell down; she had tried to rescue her but she herself was also injured. She removed Shabnam to AIIMS in a private car; both were examined and her (PW4) statement was recorded there by the police. She has also denied that Shabnam was in love with the accused, or that the accused was not the assailant or that she has deposed falsely. PW2 and PW4 are natural witnesses of the occurrence. Nothing to discredit the testimony of these three PWs has been brought out. Their testimony is also supported by medical evidence. PW3 HC Sardar Singh and PW10 H.C. Harish Chand have deposed that they were on PCR van duty at Hauz Khas, near petrol pump, Red Alert Point and on hearing cries of bachao bachao they had reached the spot; there a girl was lying on the road who was bleeding. The accused was also present with an iron knife, he tried to run away but was apprehended along with the knife. The injured was removed to the AIIMS. The local police was informed. SI Asab Singh reached there. Knife Ex. P1 and the accused were handed over to him. SI Asab Singh has deposed that on receipt of information from PCR vide DD No. 3A he along with Ct. Niranjan Singh reached the spot where the accused had been apprehended by PCR officIals and the injured was already removed to AIIMS; he went to AIIMS, collected the MLCs of Shabnam and Ranjana. Shabnam was unfit to make statement and he recorded the statement Ex. PW11/C of Ranjana, came to the spot and through Ct. Niranjan Singh got the FIR registered, the accused who was held by PCR officIals and the knife were handed over to him at spot and he arrested the accused and seized the knife Ex. P/1. PW9 Const. Niranjan Singh has corroborated him. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea that he has been falsely implicated as her parents came to know that she is having love affair with him. He did not lead any evidence. Prosecution evidence has been believed by the trial court.
8. Correctness of the finding about time, place, circumstances of the occurrence and the appellant being the assailant and knife Ex.P1 being the weapon of offence have not been disputed during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence led by prosecution is reliable, cogent and has well established that the appellant is the asailant, he had caused injuries to Shabnam, was arrested at the spot along with the knife and Ex.P1 is the weapon of offence used by him. PW7 Dr. Bitra George who had examined the injured first on her admission in AIIMS has proved the extent and nature of injuries.
Section 307 IPC reads as under :
307. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
9. This Section itself shows that to attract Section 307 IPC it is not necessary that the injuries caused should necessarily be fatal. What is necessary is the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death by his overt act. Regarding the scope of this Section, in Rameshwar Vs. Emperor AIR 1935 Oudh 281 it was held as under : "The scope of S.307, IPC is very clear. The intention or knowl edge, which is necessary to constitute murder, may exist combined with an act which falls short of the complete commission of that offence. The murderer may do an act towards the commission of the murder but may involuntarily fail, or be intercepted, or prevent ed from consummating the crime. To justify a conviction under S.307, IPC, therefore, it is not essential, in our opinion, that actual injury capable of causing death should have been inflict ed. Although the nature of the injuries caused may often give considerable assistance to a Court in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even in some cases be ascer tained without reference at all to the actual wounds inflicted upon the persons attacked."
10. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil and Others , the Supreme Court has also stated the same principle, as under:
"To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascer tained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
11. In this case the High Court had acquitted the accused of the offence under this Section merely because the injuries inflicted on the victims were in the nature of a simple hurt. Holding that the finding was incorrect finding, the judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court.
12. In Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar also it was held that the mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the appellant did not cut any vital organ of the injured is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307. The state of the accused's mind has to be deduced from the surrounding circumstances and for that purpose the existence of a motive is a relevant consideration.
13. It thus, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act would cause death and it is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim by the assailant should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section.
14. The intentions of the assailant could, inter alia, be gathered from the nature of the weapon used, the parts of the body where the injuries are inflicted, whether a single or multiple blows have been given and for that purpose, motive if proved would also be a very relevant circumstance.
15. PW7, Dr. Bitra George who had examined the injured first has deposed that on 31.3.1993 he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer in AIIMS, patient Shabnam Bano came there at about 8.11 a.m. on that day with multiple stab injuries, over face, neck, chest and arm and one penetrating injury over scalp in the right occipital area and he had prepared her MLC Ex. PW 7/A. He had found the following injuries :
1. Penetrating injury over the scalp in the right occipital area,
2. Incised wound over neck (three in number) exposed to deep fascia,
3. Multiple laceration over right ear,
4. Incised wound over right upper arm posteriorly,
5. Multiple incised wound over right upper arm (three in num ber),
6. Incised wound over left back scapular region,
7. ?Tendon cut over right mid finger, and the injured was unfit to make statement.
16. He had thus found multiple stab injuries and has opined the injuries as grievous. (He had also examined PWRanjana having injuries vide MLC Ex. PW7/B.) In crossexamination he has stated that injury on the neck of Shabnam had depth of 11/2" and that the injured was shifted immediately for emergency operation of trachea (neck). and injury was dangerous to life and by 'dangerous' he meant the injuries were sufficient to kill the person. He has given opinion about the injuries being dangerous on the basis of his own medical examination and that of ENT Surgeon who had immediately operated the patient on trachea (neck). The injuries are three stab injuries on neck exposed to deep fascia, penetrating injury over the scalp, right ear in the right occipital area; multiple laceration over scapular region, multiple incised wound on right upper arm, incised wound over left back. The injuries are multiple incised injuries obviously given in quick succession when the injured was in walking position and from behind. The injuries are in the region of neck. Neck is a vital part. The injured was removed to hospital soon after the occurrence, had to undergo emergency operation due to trachea injuries. She was thus given timely medical aid. From the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4 it is proved that the appellant has been constantly following and harassing the injured, obviously he wanted to make improper advances towards her. This was repulsed by the injured; she complained about this to her father where the accused was employed and for this reason his services were terminated. He thus had strong motive to eliminate the injured, and for that purpose, on the day of occurrence he came armed with weapon Ex. P1 and suddenly inflicted multiple injuries from behind, the injured being unaware. Ex. P1 is wholly of iron, 14 inches long, with a blade of 91/2 inches long. I had sent for this knife and it has been produced before me. It is like a chopper, the blade portion has a width of 3 cm. at its top and 3.5 cm. at the bottom of blade and 0.2 cm. in width at its back throughout, lower portion blade has been moulded with the handle. It is in a crude form and a deadly weapon. Appellant had inflicted multiple injuries, on neck and nearby regions without any excuse. The assaults thus were deliberate and preplanned and committed under aggravating circumstances. Ranjana and Harvinder Kaur who were accompanying her and also some commuters came to the rescue of the injured. Timely medical aid was also given to her. These circumstances clearly show that the intention of the accused in causing these injuries was to cause the death of the injured.
17. In some of the cases relied by the learned counsel for the appellant there is no discussion of the oral evidence and the circumstances which may have shown or proved the intention of the accused and the convictions were based on the nature of injuries which were held to be not proved to be grievous in the absence of doctor concerned or the relevant medical records. They are of no help. Each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances of its own keeping in view the legal position noticed earlier.
18. Dr. Bitra George had first examined the injured in Casualty shortly after the occurrence. He had occasion to see the nature of the injuries and had referred the injured for an emergency operation of trachea (neck). He has opined the injuries as grievous, dangerous to life and sufficient to cause death of the injured. The injuries on neck noticed by him are obviously on vital part which had penetrated deep upto fascia and the injured had to undergo emergency operation of trachea. The extent and nature of injuries clearly show that the accused had requisite intention or knowledge to cause death of the victim.
19. PW7 in MLC Ex. PW7/A has opined the injuries as grievous but in his statement has deposed that the injuries were dangerous and sufficient to cause death. The grievous injury in this case would fall in clause eighthly under Section 320 IPC which includes "any hurt which endangers life". PW7 had referred the injured for emergency operation of trachea (neck). This in itself clearly shows that but for the operation, the neck injuries would have proved fatal. It is not that Court cannot see the circumstances to come to the conclusion about the nature of injuries. In these circumstances, nonexamination of the surgeon or of other medical record is of no consequence. On the material on record it should not be difficult to draw inference that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. One is supposed to know the consequences of his act. But for the timely medical aid, in all probability she would have succumbed to her injuries. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is well merited. The appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court. This finding is accordingly upheld.
20. It is contended that probation be granted or otherwise that a lenient view may be taken as the appellant was less than 21 years of age at the time of occurrence.
21. The appellant has been held guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC and as injuries have been inflicted by him, the offence is punishable with life imprisonment. As held in Som Nath Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan , State of Gujarat Vs. V.A. Chauhan AND State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Chandra 1995 SCC (Cri) 249, an accused convicted for an offence punishable with life imprisonment, is not entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The nature and gravity of the offence is quite serious. A young girl was being constantly followed and harassed by the appellant, obviously he wanted forcible undesirable intimacy from her which was repulsed by her and this prompted him to brutally assault her with deadly weapon. The victim is a young girl and young girls need protection against such brutal instinct. This type of crime has to be viewed and dealt with sternly, keeping in view the interest of society especially in metropolitan cities like Delhi. This type of crime, if not punished sternly, is likely to shake the confidence of the society in the administration of criminal justice. Interest of individual cannot override the interest of the society. The purpose of sentencing, inter alia, is that the sentence should have effect on and discourage likeminded persons so that they may not be prompted so easily to indulge in similar offences. The learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to RI of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 2,500/.
22. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, nature of injuries and the interest of the society at large that helpless young girls should not be made the targets of brute force and object of lewd instincts of depraved persons, in my view the sentence in this case also does not call for any interference.
23. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.