Safaat Khan and anr. vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Safaat Khan and Sharafi appellants have come up in appeal against their conviction under section 326 and section 32 IPC respectively recorded by the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide his order dated 25th July, 1983. Safaat Khan appellant stands sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Sharafi appellant was given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released.

Safaat Khan appellant is alleged to have caused injuries to Zaheer PW 8 by a fire arm. According to the prosecution case, there was no previous enmity between the parties. It was just a stray firing by the appellant which hit Zaheer PW 8 on the left leg. According to the Xreport, the only grievous injury found on the person of Zaheer PW 8 was a chip fracture of the shaft of the tibia of left leg. The other injuries were found to be simple in nature.

Mr. Jagdev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on Kailash Prasad Kanodia and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 106, wherein Their Lordships were pleased to hold that if the fracture detected on the person of the injured was not of a serious nature then the case can be treated as one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. I find that in this case the grievous injury on the person of Zaheer is very minor. Consequently, I set aside the conviction and sentence of Safaat Khan appellant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. As pointed out above, since there was no previous enmity between the parties and this appellant is not a previous convict, the ends of justice would be amply met if Safaat Khan appellant is given the benefit of probation. He is ordered to be released on his furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. However, he would pay Rs. 2,000/ payable as compensation to Zaheer PW 8. If the compensation is not paid within two months, Safaat Khan appellant would be called upon serve the sentence which would be one year''s rigorous imprisonment. The order regarding Sharafi appellant calls for no interference. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.