Karnail Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

On the statement of one Onkar Singh a case FIR No. 93 dated 10101991 was registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot against the present petitioners, under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. As per case of the prosecution on 9th October, 1991 Tehsildar Faridkot had gone to village Pakhi Khurd for demarcating the village periphery. At about 9.45 a.m. the village Panchayat had gathered at the spot. Gurdial Singh father of the complainant and Karnail Singh and his three sons who are the accused were also present there.No decision could be made regarding the periphery of the village and the Tehsildar went back. An altercation took place between Gurdial Singh and the accused. The accused went towards their tubewell and returned armed with `dang'' and `gandassas''. Malkait singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Gurdial Singh. Nachhatar Singh also gave gandasa blow on his head and similarly Hakam Singh hit Gurdial Singh on his head with his gandasa. The occurrence was witnessed by Onkar singh, Phula Singh and Ajaib Singh. Medico Legal examination of Gurdial Singh was conducted at which three injuries were found on his person. The doctor advised Xray. After completion of the investigation a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot heard the parties on the question of charge and came to the conclusion that prima facie an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against Malkiat Singh, Hakam Singh and Nachhatar Singh and under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Karnail Singh. A charge was framed against them and since the offence was triable by Judicial Magistrate, the case was sent back to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot for disposal according to law. Aggrieved by this order dated 241992 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot Karnail Singh and others filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that chargesheet framed against them be quashed.

The petitioners alleged that no offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and the medical evidence showed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner came within the purview of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries were Xrayed and the Doctor declared all the injuries as simple in nature vide his report dated 19101991. It was only on 15121991 that at the instance of the Police, the Doctor opined that possibility of collective effect of these injuries being dangerous to life could not be ruled out. This opinion was given without any fresh piece of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency.

The complaint party also filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge charging the accusedpetitioner under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed and the could be directed to try the accused for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as they had caused gandasa blows on the head of Gurdial Singh. It was pleaded that veracity and effect of the evidence was not to be judged at the stage of framing of the charge and at the stage of framing of charge the court has to just see the allegations against the accused. Th question what value was to be attached to the opinion of the Doctor was to be examined at the final decision of the case and not at the stage of framing of the charge. The injuries were caused to Gurdial Singh with gandasas on his head and when the police wanted to record his statement he was found unconscious. Subsequently the injured was removed to Ludhiana where he was admitted in a hospital.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners was that there were only three injuries found on the person of Gurdial Singh after Xray examination were declared to be simple. The report of the Doctor dated 19th October which was made after the Xray report did not in any way reveal that the injuries on the person of Gurdial Singh injured were dangerous to life. It was only after two months that this opinion of the Doctor was obtained. So no reliance could be place on the subsequent opinion of the Doctor which was procured by the police. I find that this contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 observed :

"Reading Sections 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction."

In the instant case although the injuries were found to be simple yet the same were caused with a sharp edged weapon on the vital part of the body i.e. head. Before the chargesheet was presented in Court, opinion of the Doctor was obtained with regard to the gravity of the injuries and the Doctor opined that there was possibility of injuries being dangerous to life collectively. What value was to be attached to this opinion of the Doctor obtained after about two months of the receipt of the Xray report was to be considered at the time of final decision of the case. Prima facie the trial Court found that the case is covered by clause 8thly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code which was as follows :

"Any hurt which endangers life or which causes sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."

This clause speaks of two things (i) Any hurt which endangers life (ii) any hurt which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. An injury can be said to endanger life if it is in itself that it may put the life of the injured in danger. In this case as per report of the Doctor there was possibility that collectively the injuries could prove dangerous. The Additional Sessions Judge thus after considering the record of case, documents and hearing the parties rightly formed opinion that there was ground for presuming that Malkiat Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Hakam Singh committed an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code while Karnail Singh, an offence under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed, so also the petition filed by the complainant.