Arun Kumar vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Arun Kumar appellant was convicted by Shri A.S. Sodhi, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 31/2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this appeal.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 4.9.1985, Moti Ram made a complaint to Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdit Singh that he was residing in Soodanwali Gali, near Civil Hospital, Moga and Arun Kumar appellant was his neighbour. Arun Kumar was in the habit of taking liquor and raising catcalls. On 3.9.1985, at about 9 or 10.00 p.m. Arun Kumar came in front of the house of Moti Ram and raised catcalls. Moti Ram protested and complained to Arun Kumar''s father. The appellant felt offended.

On 4.9.1985 at about 4.00 p.m. Moti Ram was present in his house and was talking to his brother Kanwar Bhan who had come from Delhi. Subhash Chander was also sitting there. The appellant came in front house house and started abusing them. Moti Ram went outside and asked the accused that why he was abusing them as they are discussing only their family affairs. The accusedappellant went inside his house and came back with `Karad'' (kitchen knife). In the meantime, Kanwar Bhan and Subhash Chander also came out of the house. The appellant gave a knife blow on the left shoulder of Moti Ram and when Kanwar Bhan went to rescue Moti Ram, he was given a blow in his chest and Subhash Chander was also given injures. Hues and cries were raised and Kartar Singh and Mohinder singh were attracted to the spot. The injured were removed to Civil Hospital. After investigation accusedappellant was challaned, tried and convinced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. S.P. Bansal, PW1, who had conducted Xray examination of Kanwar Bhan and had found air in subcutaneous tissues on the right side of the chest. His report is Ex. P.1. PW2 Moti Ram, PW3 Kanwar Bhan and PW4 Subhash Chander are the eyewitnesses. They have supported the case of the prosecution and given details of the occurrence. PW5 Romesh Kumar Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, had medicolegally examined Moti Ram on 4.9.1985 and found one incised wound on the left side of the back. Dr. Romesh Kumar examined Subhash Chander at 4.55 p.m. the same day and found two incised injuries on his person. He also examined Kanwar Bhan same day at 5.10 p.m. and found one incised injury on his person. PW6 Kulwant Singh Draftsman had prepared the site plan Ex. P.9 PW7 Kartar Singh stated that on hearing the alarm raised he was attracted to the spot and he saw injuries being caused to Kanwar Bhan, Subhash Chander and Moti Ram by the accusedappellant. PW8 ASI Gurdit Singh is the Investigating Officer.

The accusedappellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and gave his version as under :

"I am innocent. The P.Ws. are interested witnesses. On 4.9.1985, at about 4 p.m. I was in my house and cutting vegetable with a Karad, when Moti Ram, his brother Kanwar Bhan and Subhash Chander armed with Dangs came inside the house. Kanwar Bhan hit me on the head with his dang and then they all caused me injuries at my hand, arms and shoulder. I, in right of private defence, gave injuries to them with the Karad, with which I was cutting the vegetable at that time Jagir Singh and Nachhattar Singh witnessed the said occurrence. The police arrested me in the evening and did not get my injuries examined till 6.9.1985. The police also did not get my injuries Xrayed, I have filed crosscomplaint, which is pending trial in the lower Court."

Shri Vikramjit Singh Dhillon, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Moga, was examined as DW1. He stated that he had medico legally examined accusedappellation 6.9.1985 at 2.50 p.m. and found six blunt weapon simple injuries on his person. He further stated that injuries could not have been caused on 4.9.1985 and might have been caused on 2nd or 3rd September, 1985.

Trial Court did not accept the defence version and accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The prosecution case is supported by disinterested witnesses and accusedappellant has not led any evidence to support his version. The trial Court has rightly discarded the defence plea. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out as the injury was not dangerous to life. Dr. Romesh Kumar PW5 has stated in his statement that he had declared the injury on the person of Kanwar Bhan as dangerous to life as the lung was punctured as a result of the injury. There was no long standing enmity between the parties.

No doubt the injury has been declared to be dangerous by the doctor. Simply because the injury is declared dangerous, it cannot be presumed that an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out. Clause Eightly of Section 320, I.P.C. also deals with an injury which endangers life. A dangerous injury will be grievous according to the definition of clause Eightly of Section 320 I.P.C. and the offence shall be punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. To hold that an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out, other circumstances of the case are also to be taken into consideration. In this case, the parties are neighbours and there is no history of past enmity. The occurrence appears to have taken place without any premeditation. In this situation, even if the injury is dangerous it cannot be said that an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out. It will be a case covered by clause Eightly of Section 320, I.P.C. and shall be punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 307, I.P.C., but is convicted under Section 326 I.P.C.

In the circumstances of the case I am of the view that sentence of 11/2 years R.I. will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from 31/2 years R.I. to 11/2 years R.I. With this modification in the offence and the sentence, the appeal is disposed of.