Gauri Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Surinder Singh, J.—Challenge in this appeal is by the convict to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions case No. 16/03 RBT 30/2004 and Sessions trial No. 2/04 RBT 25/2004 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ with the default clause. Further, the fine amount, on its realization was ordered to be paid to injured Kamaljit Kaur. The matter was fixed for hearing today. The complainant Prem Lal and the victim Kamaljit Kaur along with counsel Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate and convict are also present.

Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate submits that the complainant and the victim on one part and the convict on the other have reconciled the matter with the intervention of the elders in the family long back. They are close relatives. Therefore, the victim and the complainant pray for leniency in sentence, but did not pray for setting aside the conviction in view of the overwhelming evidence on record.

As a matter of fact, the convict was charge sheeted, tried u/s 307 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 11.10.2012 at about 12 noon, the convict/appellant caused hurt on the skull of Smt. Kamaljit with a pick axe with the intention and knowledge and under the circumstances that if by that act he had caused the death of Kamaljit Kaur.

The victim Kamaljit was examined in the Court. She testified that she had gone to attend the marriage of her relation at Hamirpur along with her family members. When she was returning, she came across Gauri Lal who was busy in doing the construction work of his house and had placed the building material and grit on the path. On being asked as to why this material was put on the common path without her consent, he picked up altercation, many people had gathered on the spot, including her son Pawan Kumar. Feeling enraged, appellant picked-up his pick axe Ext. P1 and assaulted Kamaljit Kaur by dealing its blow on her head causing bleeding injury. The victim fell unconscious. She was immediately removed to the hospital where she remained for a day.

The matter was reported to the police. Pick axe Ext. P1 was taken into possession. The mother-in-law of Kamaljit Kaur aforesaid corroborated the above version during the trial. The injury on the person of the victim was also proved by PW4 Dr. Suresh Kumar. He noticed 4x2x2 cm bleeding injury on the skull which was tender. He applied stitches and advised X-ray and CT scan. Further, according to him injury in question was dangerous to life caused with a blunt weapon. To this effect MLC is Ext. PW4/A. No cogent explanation was offered to the circumstances which were found attendant upon the convict in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it was not a case falling within the ambit of Section 307 Indian Penal Code but it is proved to be u/s 324 Indian Penal Code. Thus, he was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ajay Sharma agrees to this preposition. He does not have anything else to say except that in view of the statement of the victim, who is present in the Court and also the complainant, sentence of imprisonment may not be passed as the entire family can maintain cordiality in future.

As a matter of fact, earlier Section 324 Indian Penal Code was compoundable with the permission of the Court but later an amendment was carried out in the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Section was omitted by Act No. 25 of 2005. Therefore, Section 324 Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.

However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the manner in which the incident had taken place, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met in case sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the learned trial Court is modified to the extent till rising of the Court without disturbing the fine. Ordered accordingly.

It is stated that the fine amount stands already deposited in the learned trial Court which shall be paid to the victim PW2 Smt. Kamaljit Kaur, as ordered by the learned trial Court in its judgment. Thus, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence is accordingly modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of.