Satpal vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Jind in Session Case No. 14 of 1997 (Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1997) dated 24.9.1997.

The appellantsaccused have been prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, injured Karambir Singh was residing in the village Dumerkha Khurd. On 3.12.1996 when he and one Kidara were unloading earth from their Baggi in their plot in the village, accused armed with Gandasi and lathi respectively came there and blamed Karambir for damaging their dungcakes and accused No. 1 gave a gandasi blow on the left side of the head of Karambir while accused No. 2 gave a lathi blow on the left side of the chest of Karambir. As a result of the injuries Karambir fell down and became unconscious. Kidara raised hue and cry and on hearing it, some persons came to the spot. On seeing them, both the accused left the place of occurrence. Karmabir was shifted to General Hospital, Narwana where he was treated. On the basis of the statement of Kidara, the case was registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the accused and the investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against both the accused.

On the basis of the material placed before him, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked certain documents. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. who pleaded not guilty.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and they were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 9 months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences, the accused preferred this appeal.

PW1 is an eyewitness who deposed that A1 caused injury to Karambir with a gandasi on his head while Parkash caused an injury with a lathi on the left side of chest of Karambir. It is also in evidence that the dispute was in regard to damage of cow dungcakes by Karambir and Kidara while unloading the earth from their Buggi. PW2, who is an injured, corroborated the evidence of PW1, the eyewitness.

A reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the incident took place as narrated by them. Nothing has been elicited in their crossexamination to discredit them. The medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW8 is the Doctor who examined Karambir. Exhibit PK is medicolegal report in regard to the injuries sustained by Karambir, PW2. It shows an incised wound of 3 cm. x 0.5 cm bone deep on left parietal region. He also found a contusion on the left side of the chest. According to the doctor injuries were caused within four hours prior to the examination of Karambir. Injury No. 1 was stated to be grievous since there was a fracture of skull bone extending to the (sic). Evidence does not show that the accused caused injuries with an intention to kill the victim. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly shows that there was exchange of words between the PWs and the accused in regard to the damage of cow dungcakes. It is not the case of the prosecution that prior to the date of incident, there was any enmity between the accused and PW1 and PW2. It was only because of damage of cow dungcakes while unloading the earth, the occurrence took place.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. But since the injury was sustained by Karambir on his head and it was grievous injury, I am of the opinion that the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. I, accordingly, set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and convert the same into 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. I also confirm the conviction of both the accused for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Sat Pal, accused No. 1, has been in custody from 21.12.1996 to 26.9.1997 and till today i.e. he has been in jail for more than two years and 10 months. Therefore, I reduce the sentence imposed on the Ist appellant Sat Pal who caused grievous injury, to the period already undergone.

The 2nd accused who caused only simple injury has already been in custody from 21.12.1996 to 19.3.1997 and also in jail from 26.9.1997 till March, 1998. Thus, he has also undergone sentence for a period of about one year.

In these circumstances while altering the conviction of the accused from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and also while confirming the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, I reduce the sentence imposed on the accusedappellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the period already undergone since they are in jail for substantial period. According, they are directed to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

With the above alteration of conviction and modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.