Partap Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J.—Partap Singha appellant was convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sent need to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 11,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas his co-appellants, namely, Lakha Singh and Balvinder Singh were convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each. Balwinder Singh appellant was convicted u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 ears and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months whereas his co-appellants Partap Singh and Lakha Singh were convicted under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each. Balwinder Singh appellant was further convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, whereas his co-appellants, namely, Partap Singh and Lakha Singh were convicted under Sections 324/34, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each. Partap Singh was also convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur. The substantive sentences were however, ordered to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences by way of present appeal.

The only point urged by Mr. H.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the appellants, is that no offence is made out under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Balwinder Singh sentenced substantively (for causing injuries to Sadhu Ram P.W.) u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Injury on the left wrist was opined by the doctor as grievous. On X-ray Dr. Pritam Singh P.W. 5 found that there was nothing abnormal in the injury on the left wrist. Thus, it cannot be said that the aforesaid injury comes within the ambit of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code No extent or dimensions of the fracture are given by the doctor and on X ray no fracture was actually found. Thus, the appellants are acquitted of the offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence will fall u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

As far as offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no motive on the part of the appellants, nor is there any previous enemity attributable to them. The occurrence took place in the night. The doctor has not opined that any of the injuries on the persons of the injured was dangerous or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Moreover, all the injuries are on the non vital parts of the bodies of the injured i.e. on the lower part of their bodies. There is no charring or blackening of the fire-arm injuries. The fire arm injuries were caused by Partap Singh appellant. He fired shot from a distance of about 30 yards. A Full Bench of this Court in Sarvirder Singh alias Chhinda v. The State 1977 C.L.R. 77 observed as under:-

..... It is true that the mere act of firing a gun need not necessarily lead to the inference of the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to make the offence one of murder. A person may fire a gun in the air intending to frighten someone, a person may aim and shoot at someone''s legs intending to cause injury to the leg, a person may discharge a gun from a distance of 300 yards knowing that the maximum range of the gun is 30 yards. In such or similar situations, one may not draw knowledge for the commission of the offence of murder.

Thus I am of the considered view that the appellants had no intention to cause the death of the injured. Hence no offence is made out u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code also and they are acquitted of the same. However, their conviction under sections 324 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, as also u/s 27 of the Arms Act in the case of Partap Singh appellant.

It was lastly urged that the appellants are all first offenders and they may be given the benefit of probation.

It have perused the record. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellants are previous convicts. There is also nothing against their characters and antecedents. The Legislature by including Sections 360 and 361 in the new Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, intended to reform certain categories of offenders by giving them the benefit of probation, where it is possible. It is only by giving special, reasons u/s (sic). Criminal Procedure Code, that this benefit can be denied by the Court. The special reasons are to be in regard to the age, character, antecedents and other circumstances in which the offence was committed. Reference in this connection may be made to a recent Authority reported as Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal 1979 C.A.R. 385, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

''Special reasons'' in section 361, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 means to compel the Court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender with due regard to his age character, antecedents and circumstances in which offence was committed.

In my view, it is a fit case where the appellants should be given the benefit of probation. Accordingly, their conviction is maintained, but their sentence of imprisonment and fine is set aside and it is directed that they will be released on probation of good conduct. Partap Singh appellant shall be released on probation for a period of two years, with one surety in the like amount whereas his co-appellants, namely, Lakha Singh and Balwinder Singh shall be released on probation for a period of one year each on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each, with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of he trial Court, undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Partap Singh appellant is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- whereas his co-appellants Balwinder Singh and Lakha Singh are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each, as compensation. Out of the compensation, Rs. (sic) shall be paid to Sadhu Ram injured and Rs. 2,000/- to Mehnga Ram injured P.Ws. and the rest of the compensation be given to the remaining injured persons, namely, Jito, Bawi, Swarni, Mohan Lal, Charan Dass, Sibu Ram and Shangara Ram P.Ws in equal proportion, who be informed.

Except for the alteration in the nature of offence and sentence, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.