Ram Dass vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1986 (R.T. 6 of 1987) by his judgment dated 23.7.1987.

The appellants alongwith two others were prosecuted for the offences under Section 308 I.P.C.

According to the case of the prosecution on 25.6.1986 the brother of the husband of the complainant came to see her in village Ubha. At about 8 p.m. she heard a raula (noise) raised by accused No. 2 and her brotherinlaw Janta Singh. When she came out of the house and saw accused No. 1 Kala Singh hitting Janta Singh on his forehead and Rosha Singh (A4) gave a brickbat on the jaw of Janta Singh. Ram Dass (A2) gave brick bat which hit the complainant Gejo on her forehead when she was lifting Janta Singh who had become unconscious. It is further the case of the prosecution that Chhota Singh (A3) gave a blow on her head with brick bat. When she raised alarm, Bahadur Singh, fatherinlaw of the complainant came there and thereafter all the accused ran away. Thereafter injured Smt. Gejo and Janta Singh were taken to Civil Hospital, Maur. Further, according to the prosecution, on 26.6.1986 on the receipt of the information from the Civil Hospital, Maur, Head Constable Gurtej Singh recorded the statement of Smt. Gejo on the basis of which the FIR was registered and the investigation was taken up. All the accused were arrested during the course of investigation on 9.7.1986. After completion of the investigation, all the four accused were chargesheeted.

On the basis of the material placed before him, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to which the accused pleaded not guilty.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses and exhibited two documents.

On the consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda convicted all the accused for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C., but directed Kala Singh and Rosha Singh accused to be released on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act since both of them were aged about 19 and 21 years and sentenced Ram Dass (A2) and Chhota Singh (A3) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, appellants namely Ram Dass (A2) and Chhota Singh (A3) filed this appeal.

PW4 examined the injured person Janta Singh and Smt. Gejo. He found two bruises and a laceration of gums and mucosa of the lower jaw on the person of Janta Singh (PW2). PW4 also found two lacerated injuries on the left side of the forehead and on the left temple of Smt. Gejo (PW1). According to the Doctor the Injuries were simple in nature.

A reading of the evidence of Gejo and Janta Singh, PW1 and PW2 clearly proves that the incident took place in which all the accused caused injuries to PW1 and PW2. It is a fact that Janta Singh remained in the Hospital for a period of 28 days. But according to the Doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, I do not think that the accused attempted to commit culpable homicide. Section 308 I.P.C. reads as follows :

"Whoever does not act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both."

In the present case, the injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 cannot be said that they were caused with an intention to commit culpable homicide. There is also no evidence to show that the accused had knowledge that the injuries which they were causing were likely to cause death amounting to culpable homicide.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the conviction under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. But the fact remains that though the injuries on person of Janta Singh (PW2) were simple in nature, he remained in the Hospital for 28 days. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused are guilty of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused No. 1 Kala Singh and Accused No. 4 were released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act in view of the their tender age while Ram Dass (A2) and Rosha Singh (A4) were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The incident took place in the year 1986 i.e. more than 13 years ago. At the time of the occurrence, the appellant No. 1 namely Ram Dass, (A2) was aged about 65 years. Therefore, he must be aged about 78 years as on today. Likewise appellant No. 2 who is accused No. 3 was aged about 60 years at the time of the occurrence and he must be now aged about 73 years. They have already undergone imprisonment for a period of about six months.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the conviction of both the appellants under Section 308 I.P.C. and convict them for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentence them to the period already undergone by them.

With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.