Jaswant Singh vs State of Haryana

B. Rai, J.

In Sessions Case No. 86 of 1995, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, after perusal of report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of witnesses and medical report, found that a prima facie case under Sections 307/323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the accused persons and ordered the framing of charge for the said offences vide his order dated February 2, 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the accused filed the present Revision Petition.

Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of Baldev Singh, on April 8, 1994 at about 9 p.m., a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened in which respectables of the village participated. The complaint was to the effect that some boys of the village teased the womenfolk of the complainant. However, no decision could be taken on the said complaint and all the persons attending the Panchayat meeting dispersed. Mam Raj petitioner got enraged and remarked that he could not allow the brother of Baldev Singh to be Sarpanch of the village. Mam Raj also in another tone said that the complainant, i.e. the younger brother of the Sarpanch, be caught hold. At this, Phool Chand son of Sadha Ram raised a lalkara and Gian Chand son of Baru Ram caught hold of Baldev Singh. In the meantime, Jaswant Singh petitioner who was holding a saria, gave a blow with the same on the right side of forehead of Baldev Singh and Mam Raj petitioner gave him slaps and fist blows. Baldev Singh raised a noise mar dia, mar dia, which attracted Ramesh son of Surta Ram and Ram Saran son of Mehar Singh to the scene of occurrence and they rescued Baldev Singh from their clutches. Thereafter, all the accused persons went away from the spot uttering that they would see him again. As a result of injuries, Baldev Singh fell down and his brother Lajja Ram took him to Primary Health Centre, Sadhaura. It appears that thereafter the injured was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh. On receipt of information from the Doctor, Head Constable Dharam Pal, Police Station Sadhaura, made an application, copy Annexure P2, to the Medical Officer, P.G.I., Chandigarh, for obtaining opinion as to whether the injury on the person of Baldev Singh was dangerous to life, or not. On medical examination, the Doctor found the following injury on the person of Baldev Singh :

"lacerated wound measuring about 4.5 cm x 1 cm over the frontal area of skull just left to the middle line. Advised Xray skull".

The Doctor on the same date, viz., April 14, 1995, opined as follows :

"Without treatment it could have been life threatening, dangerous to life and was sufficient to cause death".

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State counsel. The counsel for the petitioners argued that Baldev Singh injured in the instant case was admitted to the hospital and the only injury sustained by Baldev Singh was allegedly caused with a saria, a blunt weapon, on the right side of his forehead, but there was no fracture underneath the injury and during the period he was under treatment in the P.G.I., Chandigarh, no complication was noticed by the Doctor till he was discharged. He further argued that there was no material on the record to support the opinion of the Doctor and that a bare perusal of the First Information Report and Medico legal Report would show that the opinion of the Doctor is not wellfounded and he was not justified to declare the injury on the person of Baldev Singh to be dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death. It was also argued that even if it is presumed that the injury that endangers life or is sufficient to cause death as opined by the Doctor, cannot be said to be an injury dangerous to life. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right to record that a prima facie case under Sections 307/323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the accused.

In Tej Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1978 P.L.R. (Pb. & Har.) 76, the Doctor who medically examined the injured gave his opinion that the injury in question was "dangerous to life and if not treated, i.e. to say that but for timely medical aid the injured was likely to die". Consequently, charge under Section 307 was framed. However, when the matter came up for hearing in appeal, this Court expressed the view that this was certainly not the type of the injury as would attract the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which envisages an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury described by the Doctor was a lesser injury and would fall within clause Eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. In the State of Punjab v. Bant Singh and another, 1996(2) R.C.C. 596, the injured suffered the following injuries :

Incised wound 8 cms x 11/2 cms on the right side of skull. The wound was horizontally placed and starting from back of right ear, going to the occipital region. Underlying bone was fractured. Fresh bleeding was present.

Contusion 5 cms x 2 cms on the left side and upper part of chest. Advised xray.

Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of neck.

Swelling 3 cms x 3 cms on the medial aspect of left knee joint".

A Board of three Doctors examined the injured with special reference to Injury No. 1 and opined that Injury No. 1 could be dangerous to life if imminent medical treatment was not provided. The reasons for declaring the injury as dangerous to life were that the same was on the vital part of the head, patient was unconscious, blood pressure was unrecordable, pulse was unrecordable as per MRD No. 1316, dated June 25, 1989 and the patient was having several cerebral concussions. When the matter came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court, the Bench expressed the view that to charge a person under Section 307 or Section 326, Indian Penal Code, it shall have to be shown as to what was the actual intention of the assailant as also as to what was the nature of injury i.e. the extent of damage caused to body or any organ thereof. The learned Judge went on to say that it was true that Nachhattar Singh had been attributed an injury on the head of injured and the said injury appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon but, from the medical evidence, gist whereof had been given above, it appeared that there was no damage to any vital part nor any fracture was found on xray examination. The case against Nachhattar Singh and Bant Singh, thus, could not fall either under Section 307 or Section 326, Indian Penal Code. In Atma Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1982(2) C.L.R. 496, one Hans Raj was given injury with a knife which plunged into his chest, while the coaccused held him. On medicolegal examination, that injury was described as an incised stab wound 33/4 cms. x 11/4 cms. on the left lateral side of the chest in the mid auxiliary line 10 cms. to the left side of nipple at its level, 7 cms. below the roof of axilla. Wound almost longitudinally placed." However, the Doctor examining the injured gave the opinion that the injury was caused by sharp edged pointed weapon. Without probing the depth of injury, he, however, advised xray and operation. Dr. P.S. Bedi who performed the operation, described the injury as dangerous to life and stated that the injured would have died had the operation not been performed upon him. When the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court, the learned Judges constituting the Bench expressed the view that :

"When the doctor is required to carry out medicolegal examination of the injury suffered in criminal assault, he is required to examine the injury from two standpoints (1) for the purpose of opining the kind of weapon used to inflict the injury in question, and (2) to form an opinion regarding the degree of seriousness of the injury in order to enable to see as to what offence has the accused committed by inflicting the injury in question. The Indian Penal Code recognises from stand (sic) only four types of injuries (1) simple injuries; (2) grievous; (3) injuries of the kind inflicted with intent to commit murder described in clause Firstly and 2ndly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, (4) injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature envisaged by clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no provision in the Indian Penal Code which envisages or refers to an injury described as ''dangerous to life''. The medicolegal examination of an injured person is intended to enable the Investigating Agency and the Court to find out the nature of the offence and, therefore, the doctor examining an injured person has to opine that the injury in question is one or the other of the type recognised in the Indian Penal Code for the purposes of a given offence. When a doctor describes an injury as ''dangerous to life'' one has to see what had the doctor intended to convey thereby. Is one is to held that since injury has not been described by the doctor as one which ''endangered life'', so the concerned injury cannot be held to be grievous on the specious ground that an injury described as ''dangerous to life'' is not as serious an injury which ''endangers life''.

After discussing the case law laid down in Jai Narain Mishra and others v. State of Bihar, 1972 C.A.R. 19 (SC) and Sukhdev Singh v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 1974 and overruling the Single Bench judgments in Jagrup Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1973 C.L.R. 253, Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 1975 (Harbans Singh and others v. The State of Punjab) and Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1976 (Surjit Singh alias Kala v. The State of Punjab), the Division Bench held as under :

"We are of the view that the Court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert''s opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life, the Court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned. We are also firmly of the view that wherever a doctor describes an injury as ''dangerous to life'' and the nature of the injures are such which could merit such a conclusion then such an injury has to be treated as ''grievous hurt'' of the description mentioned in first portion of clause 8 of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code".

In the instant case, Baldev Singh suffered a blunt weapon injury which on medicolegal examination was described as under :

"lacerated wound measuring about 4.5 cm x 1 cm over the frontal area of skull just left to the middle line. Advised Xray skull."

It appears that thereafter the injured received the treatment in P.G.I., Chandigarh, where he was advised Xray of the injury. This opinion appears to have been given by the Radiologist. After Xray examination, the Medical Officer, P.G.I., Chandigarh, gave the following opinion :

"Without treatment if could have been life threatening, dangerous to life and was sufficient to cause death".

From the above, it is clear that the injury was caused with blunt weapon but underneath the injury no fracture was found. There is nothing on the record to show that the condition of the patient had deteriorated to the extent which led the Doctor to give the above referred to opinion. When in the facts and circumstances of the case the opinion of the Doctor is considered in view of the case law on the point discussed above, the conclusion that follows is that the injury suffered by Baldev Singh does not fall within the ambit of Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and is covered by clause Eighthly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code.

Resultantly, the Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated February 2, 1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri framing the charge under Sections 307/323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, being erroneous, cannot be allowed to sustain. The same is quashed and it is held that the offence prima facie made out is under Section 325, Indian Penal Code.

Case now be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of competent jurisdiction.