Ram Chand vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 6th April, 1989, whereby the conviction of Ram Chand petitioner under Section 326, Indian Penal Code was maintained, but his sentence under the said offence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His conviction under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, was also maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months'' R.I., and the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 150/, and in default payment thereof, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

Conviction of Malkiat Singh petitioner under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, for inflicting simple injuries to Buta Ram P.W. was maintained, but he was released on probation of good conduct.

Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

The petition was admitted only qua sentence awarded to the petitioners.

In brief the facts relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 11th January, 1984 at about 7 a.m. both the petitioners and their eight other coaccused, while armed with deadly weapons, went and attacked Buta Ram P.W., and his sons, while they were working in the fields. Ram Chand petitioner is said to have given one Gandasi blow on the index finger of the right hand of Buta Ram, whereas Malkiat Singh gave a Gandasi blow on the right side of the head of Buta Ram. P.W., from its reverse side. The said injury was found to be only skindeep. Thereafter the other coaccused gave injuries to Buta Ram. Ram Chand petitioner also gave a Gandasi blow on the forehead of Sharan Singh P.W., son of Buta Ram P.W. which was found to be an incised wound, only scalp deep, by the doctor.

Counsel for the petitioners was heard. His main grievance is that injury No. 6 on the right index figure of Buta Ram P.W. was not a grievous injury, and the opinion of the doctor in this regard cannot be relied upon. Counsel for the petitioner was permitted to raise this plea, as it would deal with the offence made out against Buta Ram, whose conviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, was maintained. For the sake of convenience, description of the said injury which finds mention in the testimony of Dr. Subhash Batta (P.W.1), is reproduced as under :

"Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the dorsal lateral aspect of proximal part of right index finger, underneath bone cut, nerves cut, tenants cut and the wound was bleeding profusely."

Even though no Xray was done, the doctor declared the said injury as grievous.

Dealing with somewhat similar situation, it was held in Hori Lal and another v. The State of U.P., AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1969, as under :

"......... It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is break by cutting or splintering of the bone, or there is a rupture or fissure in it, it would amount to a fracture within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 320. What we have to see is whether the cuts in the bones noticed in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in them. The nature of the injuries, as spoken to by the doctor in his evidence, discloses the length, breadth and depth of each injury. So far as the depth of the injuries Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 is concerned, each one of the injuries shows that it is bone deep and they are described as cutting the underlying bone. In injury No. 3 left humerus, in injury 4 radius, in injury 5 both the bones of the left forearm and in injury 6 the tibia bone shall have been cut which would show that they are fractures. Apart from this, the doctor as noticed earlier has in his evidence said that these injuries are grievous. It is contended that the doctor has not disclosed the reason, why he thinks that the injuries were grievous. But in our view the doctor would not be unaware of what injuries are grievous or what are simple. At any rate, the nature of the injuries considered with the evidence of the doctor would undoubtedly establish that all the aforesaid injuries were grievous. These injuries were inflicted by kantas which are dangerous weapons and hence the conviction under Section 326 is fully justified."

In the instant case, initially after description of the length and breadth, depth of the wound is mentioned as bone cut. It is specifically mentioned that underneath bone cut, nerves cut, tendons cut, and, the wound was bleeding profusely. All these circumstances leave no manner of doubt that the injury attributed to Ram Chand petitioner, on the right index finger of Buta Ram P.W., is grievous in nature, and, the same is fully covered by clauses fourthly and seventhly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code.

Single Bench authority of this Court in case Balwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1978(V) Cr. L.T. 306, to the effect that there is only partial cut of left tibia bone and there is nothing in the medico legal report indicating the extent of the cut, whether deep or mere scratch on the surface, and in the absence of the extent of the cut, fracture or dislocation of the bone, it would not be safe to designate the injury as grievous, cannot be followed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hori Lal''s case (supra). It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already undergone agony of trial for more than five years in the Courts below and, that lenient view may be taken concerning the sentence awarded in this case.

The grievous injury on the person of Buta Ram P.W. is not on a vital part of the body. Taking into consideration the nature, extent and seat of the said injury, as well as the period during which the petitioners have undergone the agony of trial, the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded by the appellate Court to Ram Chand petitioner, both under Sections 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code, are reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine imposed by the appellate Court, or the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof, awarded to Ram Chand petitioner, is maintained. Out of the fine realised, an amount of Rs. 500/ would be paid as compensation to Buta Ram P.W., in respect of his grievous injury, whereas, an amount of Rs. 150/ would be paid as compensation to his son Sharan Singh.

The presence and participation of Malkiat Singh petitioner is proved on the record, and he has already been granted the benefit of probation. No interference is called for in respect of the order of the appellate Court in this regard.

This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.