Santosh Singh vs State of Punjab

S.K. Jain, J.

On challan under Sections 326/324/450/34, Indian Penal Code, having been filed against Paras Ram, Raju and Sham Lal in FIR No. 168 dated 25.10.1991, P.S. Sadar, Hoshiarpur, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, after examination of material on record came to the conclusion that the injuries on the person of Santosh Singh, injured, having been caused with sharpedged weapon and being grievous in nature, were punishable under Section 326, IPC with life imprisonment and, therefore, prima facic, a case under Sections 326/324/450/34, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the accused. He further found that since the offence under Section 450 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, he committed the case to that Court vide his order dated 3rd of February, 1992. After commitment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties on the question of framing of the charge, came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate was in error in holding that prima facie the accused had also committed an offence under Section 450, Indian Penal Code. He found that they could only be charged under Section 452 in addition to other offences under Sections 24 and 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, an, therefore, vide his order dated 28th February, 1992, he sent the case back to the Magistrate for trial. The said order of the Additional Sessions Judge has been impugned in this revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The sole argument advanced before me on behalf of the revision petitioner is that from the material on record, a case under Section 450, Indian Penal Code, is made out, inasmuch as the accused had inflicted grievous hurt on the vital part of the body of the victim and, therefore, they were liable to be punished under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, for which a sentence of imprisonment for 10 years or in the alternative, imprisonment for life was provided.

In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued supporting the impugned order.

The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect has since imprisonment for life is also provided under Section 320, Indian Penal Code, the case was triable by the Court of Sessions attractive in the first instance, is in my opinion, not tenable on the sound appreciation of provisions of Sections 326/450/452, Indian Penal Code, and the material on record, including the medicolegal report wherein the injury on the person of the Santosh Singh was opined to be grievous. Prima facie the three accused had committed an offence of house trespass. They had removed their victim Santosh Singh, from his house to a distance of few yards and then, Raju accused, gave a drant blow on the right side of his scalp and Sham lal accused, gave a kirpan blow on the left side of his scalp whereas Paras Ram had caught hold of him in order to make his body available for the attack by his two companions. As is gathered from the impugned order the victim had suffered two injuries. One was simple and the other a grievous one. So, from the above material irresistible conclusion is that the three accused had committed an offence of house trespass in order to inflict grievous hurt on the person of their victim. Admittedly, the victim was relieved from the hospital after few days. In order to fall the offence under Section 450, Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients are necessary to be established.

(i) house trespass has to be committed;

(ii) house trespass has to be committed with an intention to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

When the facts and circumstances of this case are given the above acid test, prima facie it is found that the three accused did not commit house trespass, but their intention was to inflict grievous hurt on the person of injured, Santosh Singh, and, therefore, they had rendered themselves liable for an offence punishable under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 450, IPC.

The matter can be looked at from another angle. If during the course of trial on the basis of evidence, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that a case under Section 450, Indian Penal Code, was made out, he can certainly commit case again to the Court of Session.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any impropriety or irregularity, muchless any illegality in the impugned order which is hereby affirmed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.