Lakhbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh, J.—The petitioner was prosecuted under sections 323/326 IPC. After the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one month u/s 326 IPC. He was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months u/s 323 IPC.

The facts in brief are that on 8.9.1996 at about 9.30 p.m. Sarabjit Singh went to the shop of Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi for purchasing cigarettes. He found Lakhbir Singh of that very village standing near window of said shop- Jaswinder Singh. Complainant asked Jaswinder Singh to give him cigarettes of Red Lamp brand but he stated that those were not available at this shop. Then the complainant proceeded towards another shop situated within village abadi to purchase such cigarettes. Lakhbir Singh accused being tipsy asked the complaint to bring eggs for him from the said shop. Complainant informed him that he was not going there which infuriated the petitioner and he gave slaps to the complainant. Hearing the noise Jaswinder Singh and his mother Surinder Kaur came there. They intervened and separated Lakhbir Singh and Sarabjit Singh. The complainant was in the process of returning home. Then Lakhbir Singh started hurling abuses upon him, picked up the sickle meant for cutting fodder from his bicycle and ran after the complainant. Complainant raised his right arm to ward off the blow. The blow hit him on the writ causing a deep cut which started bleeding. Lakhbir Singh gave another blow of sickle to complainant hitting him on left side of the waist. Complainant raised the alarm "Mar ditta Mar dita" which attracted Jaswinder Singh and Surinder Kaur. Meanwhile Dial Singh, Jaswinder Singh brother of the complainant came to the spot. On their arrival Lakhbir Singh ran away from the spot. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Sudhar. He was medically examined. On 8.9.1996 MLR of the injured was received at Police Station Sudhar and then ASI Jagtar Singh went to the hospital to record the statement of injured. Statement of injured was recorded vide Ex.PA on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Challan against the petitioner was filed in the trial court and charge u/s 323/326 IPC was framed to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Dr. Balwinder Singh examined the complainant and found two injuries on the person of Sarabjit Singh, out of which injury No. 2 (reproduced underneath) was declared grievous.

Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence u/s 326 IPC is made out against the petitioner as Sarabjit Singh, complainant has not suffered any grievous injury as defined u/s 320 IPC. He contended that injury No. 2 on the person of Sarabjit Singh has been declared as grievous without the report of Radiologist. He pointed out that there is no dislocation of bone in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Admittedly injury No. 2 on the person of Sarabjit Singh was not radiologically examined. The doctor has declared this injury grievous only on the basis of clinical examinations.

Before declaring the injury as grievous what the Court is to see whether the cut in the bone, as per the medical report, is superficial or it dislocates the bone or there is a fracture.

The injury No. 2 on the person of Sarabjit Singh is as under:-

An incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm with cut on the underlying radius bone measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on posterior lateral aspect of right forearm just above the right writ joint. Wound was profusely bleeding.

Grievous injury as per clause seventhly of section 320 IPC reads as under:-

Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

So the injury on the person of Sarabjit Singh cannot be considered as grievous as per clause seventhly to section 320 IPC (reproduced above), as there was no fracture or dislocation of bone in this case.

Mr. B.S. Sewak, learned DAG and Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned counsel for the complainant have also not stated that injury is grievous, rather they very fairly and candidly made a statement that this injury does not come under clause seventhly of section 320 IPC.

Therefore, the findings recorded by learned trial court and lower appellate court that injury No. 2 was grievous are set aside. The injury on the person of Sarabjit Singh is to be considered as simple in nature. So offence u/s 324 IPC is made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that parties have effected a compromise. The complainant Sarabjit Singh is present in the Court. He has been identified by Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Advocate. Sarabjit Singh has made a statement that he has effected a compromise with the petitioner and they are living peacefully in the village. The complainant requested that he may be allowed to compound the offence.

The view of the above, the parties are allowed to compound the offence. The sentence and convicted awarded to the petitioner is set aside. The fine already deposited by the petitioner shall be treated as costs of litigation.