Satpal Singh vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of Sentence passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as ""trial Court"") on 9.3.2009 whereby the Appellant was convicted for the, offence under Sections

307, 326, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as follows:

Name of Sentence of RigorousSentence of Sentence of R.I. in Sentence for the offence

Appellant imprisonment fine default of payment of punishable u/s 307 IPC

fine

Satpal SinghSeven Years Rs. 5,000/- one month 307 IPC

Three Years Rs. 2,000/- 15 days 326 IPC

One Year Rs. 1,000/- 15 days 324 IPC

One Year Rs. 1,000/- 15 days 323 IPC

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the judgment of learned trial Court, are that:

On 4.6.2007 a wireless message was received from SHO, P.S. Sadar, Sangrur that injured Krishan Singh son of Bhajan Singh resident of

Sangheri was admitted in Civil Hospital. Sangrur and on receiving the message. HC Balwinder Singh arrived at C.H., Sangrur, where the doctor

declared the injured unfit to make the statement. Then telephone was received from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala that injured has been shifted from

C.H., Sangrur to R.H., Patiala and admitted in Ward No. 5 and on receiving the said message, ASI Gurcharan Singh along with HC Balwinder

Singh and PHG Ram Dhan reached at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, whereas ASI moved an application with the doctor upon which the doctor

declared the injured unfit to suffer statement. However, the brother of the injured, namely. Harbagh Singh, who was standing there, suffered

statement to the police that he along with his brother Krishan Singh were working as labourer at the brick kiln of Beant Singh resident of Jhaneri

where they used to manufacture katcha bricks in the land of Balwant Singh Sangheri and Sat Pal Singh was also doing the works of manufacturing

katcha bricks in the just adjoining land. On 4.6.2007 at about 4 a.m. he and his brother Krishan Singh riding on their cycles were going for their

work. When they took turn towards Patherwali place from the metaled road, then Krishan Singh, who was going ahead of him on his cycle arriving

3-4 killas away from the road, then Satpal Singh armed with a Daah came and alert him that that day he would not be spared and started giving

Daah blows to his brother with an intention to kill him as a result of which, his brother Krishan Singh suffered injuries near left eye, on left cheek,

on left thumb, on right side of the nose as well as on the left side of the head and fingers of right hand and also caused injuries with Daah in his

abdomen. His brother Krishan Kumar fell down on the earth, but Sat Pal Singh continued to kick him while he was lying on the earth. He and his

brother raised hue and cry, ''killed-killed'' then Sat Pal Singh ran away from the spot along with the Daah. He provided first aid to his brother and

took him to the house as he was unconscious. Then from there he along with his uncle Gurjant Singh took him to Govt. Hospital, Sangrur and he

was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. The motive behind the occurrence was that on the last Diwali he and his brother Krishan Singh and Sat

Pal Singh quarrelled with each other. Keeping in mind to kill him, he inflicted injuries to his brother Krishan Singh. On 6.6.2007 ASI along with

HC Balwinder Singh were present at bus-stand, Sangheri from Gharachon. He then arrested the accused Satpal Singh at the bridge of canal minor

in the area of Village Gharachon. During interrogation, the accused suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a Daah near the land

of Jaswant Singh on the Sanghreri-Nagra road underneath the heap of soil and only he knew about it and can get the same recovered. Then as per

his statement, he got recovered the Daah from the place of its concealment. Khakha of the same was prepared and it was taken into police

possession. Site plan of the place of recovery of Daah was prepared. The grounds of arrest were disclosed to the accused and information

regarding his arrest was sent. The personal search of the accused was conducted, but nothing was recovered. Statements of witnesses were

recorded. After the completion of entire investigation, the accused was challaned by Inspector Harinder Singh.

The accused-Appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, viz., Harbag Singh as PWl; Krishan Singh as PW2; Dr.

Gurpreet Singh Nagra as PW3; Head Constable Balwinder Singh as PW4, ASI Gurcharan Singh as PW5; Dr. Umesh Sharma as PW6; Dr.

Sanjay Bansal as PW7; Dr. Sandeep Goyal as PW8 and Dr. J.S. Garcha as PW9. The reference to the testimony of the witnesses shall be made

at the appropriate place vis-a-vis the submissions made by the two sides.

In his statement recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded his false implication.

The learned trial Court after examining the evidence led on record by both the sides and hearing counsel for the parties, recorded a finding of

conviction and accordingly, sentenced him for various offences mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as there is no evidence on

record to suggest that the alleged injury which was declared dangerous to life was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Learned Counsel has further argued that the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been added only on the opinion of Dr. Gurpreet Singh,

PW3, who described that injury No. 4 was dangerous to life as there was five hundred ml. of blood mixed with food particulars present in

peritoneal cavity, perforation jejunum in distal part about 1cm present. However, this opinion does not suggest that injury No. 4 was sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the same manner, Dr. Sanjay Bansal, who appeared as PW7, has also not rendered any opinion

with regard to the nature of injury on the basis of which it can be conclusively proved that injury No. 4 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not

present in the instant case as the intention and knowledge on the part of the accused-Appellant is missing. It is the admitted case of injured-Krishan

Kumar, PW2, that there was no previous enmity between the complainant and the Appellant. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the

Appellant had any intention to cause injury which was sufficient to cause death. Learned Counsel has further argued that recovery of the weapon

used in the alleged offence is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt as Mela Singh, the witness of the alleged recovery of the weapon, has not

been examined by the prosecution. From the cross-examination of PW4-HC Balwinder Singh and PW5-ASI Gurcharan Singh, it is clear that the

place of recovery was accessible to all, which makes the recovery of the weapon doubtful. It is further argued that neither blood stained earth was

lifted nor blood stained clothes were taken into possession by the police.

Learned Counsel has further argued that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The alleged occurrence took place on

4.6.2007, at about 4.00 a.m., whereas FIR was lodged on 5.6.2007, at about 7.30 p.m. and it is admitted by PW3 as well as PW7 that the

injured remained conscious, which creates doubt on the story projected by the prosecution. Learned Counsel has, in the end, argued that as per

the statement of in-jured-witness Krishan Singh, PW2, it is a case of false implication of the Appellant, who has stated that he was given beatings

by some unknown persons. Accordingly, the entry in the accidental register, maintained in the hospital, was made by the Doctor.

Learned Counsel for the State has argued that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of statement of the

injured. In view of the statement of the injured-witness, no further corroboration is required. He has prayed that the judgment and order of the

learned Trial Court be maintained.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.

As per the statement of PW3 which was based on the x-ray report, Exhibit PD, injuries No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 were declared as simple,

whereas injuries No. 5 and 9 were found to be grievous in nature and injury No. 4 was declared as dangerous to life. As per the statement made

by the injured-witness, the injury was stated to be given by some unknown persons and accordingly, the same was recorded in the accidental

register. In my considered opinion, in such a situation, the Court has to form its own opinion on appreciation of the medical evidence, even though

the expert may opine that the injury is dangerous to life. That, in my view, would hot be in itself sufficient to bring home the offence u/s 307 of the

Indian Penal Code. The courts are not bound by such opinion, even if it was otherwise acceptable, having been duly proved. It is required to be

seen from the facts and circumstances of each case whether any intention to cause death would be made out or not. Upon such an analysis, would

depend whether an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Reference can be made to the case of Atma Singh v. The State of

Punjab, 1982 (2) C.L.R. 496 to say that the term ""dangerous to life"" is synonymous with ""endangering life"" within the meaning of Clause 8 of

Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. It was accordingly viewed that the courts are not absolved of responsibility while deciding the criminal case

to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of injury, Expert''s opinion notwithstanding. It was further held that the court has to see the nature

and dimension of injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. The opinion of doctor in itself is not enough to return a finding of conviction

of a person for an offence. Reference can also be made to the case of Pashora Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, . This was also a case

where accused was alleged to have given a Gandasa blow on knee, hand and head etc. Still, it was held by the Apex Court that the High Court

was not right in holding that the accused had intention to cause death of the victim or the knowledge of possible death. In this case (supra), injury

on the head was described as dangerous to life. The Hon''ble Supreme Court had also observed that accused persons had no intention of causing

death of any person and nor any injuries were found so, which could be stated to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

There is no opinion forthcoming in this case also if the injuries caused by the Appellant were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. It can, thus, be said that in order to arrive at a proper conclusion, the court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location

and damage that it has caused. The court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in this regard, even though the Expert may have

opined that the injury is dangerous to life. In this case, even the injuries being dangerous to life have not been sufficiently established. It is not

proved on record that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

It is a case of sudden fight. There was no pre-mediation in this regard. The injured was removed to the hospital where he has stated that the

injuries were caused by some unknown persons. There is no positive opinion by Dr. Gurpreet Singh, PW3 that the injury on the person of injured

could be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, from the nature of injury and the intention of the Appellant, it is to be seen,

whether the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In Atma Singh''s case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that:

When the Doctor is required to carry out medicolegal examination of the injury suffered in a criminal assault, he is required to examine the injury

from two stand-points i.e. (1) for the purpose of opinion the kind of weapon used to inflict the injury in question and (2ndly) to form an opinion

regarding the decree of seriousness of the injury in question. The Indian Penal Code recognises from stand point of seriousness only four types of

injuries (1) simple injuries; (2) grievous; (3) injuries of the kind inflicted with intent to commit murder prescribed in clause Firstly and 2ndly of

Section 300 IPC (4) injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature envisaged by clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. It was

observed that there was no provision in the Indian Penal Code which envisages or refers to an injury described as ""dangerous to life"". The medico-

legal examination of an injured person is intended to enable the Investigating Agency and the Court to find out the nature of the offence and

therefore, the doctor examining an injured person has to opine that the injury in question is one or the other of the type recognised in the Indian

Penal Code, for the purposes of a given offence. When a doctor describes an injury as ''dangerous to life'', one has to see what had the doctor

intended to convey thereby. Is one to hold that since injury has not been described by the doctor as one which ''endangered life'', so the concerned

injury cannot be held to be grievous on the specious ground that an injury described as ''dangerous to life'' is not as serious an injury, which

''endangers life''. The following observation of the Division Bench are apposite:

It appears that the doctors who had been conducting the medico-legal examination have been using the term ''dangerous to life'' as

synonymous with an injury which ''endangers life''. Even the Courts at times have considered an injury described as dangerous to life as an injury

envisage in clause Eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard, reference can be made to AIR 1930 305 (Lahore) . In that

case the injury was on the right side of the neck about 2-1/2""x3/4"" in dimension inflicted with a sharp edged weapon. The doctor had, in fact, in

that case deposed that there was every possibility of the deceased surviving but for the wound becoming septic apparently as a result of it being

pressed with hands and bandaged with dirty cloth in the initial stages before the deceased was taken to the hospital. The Court held that though a

finding that the Appellant knew that his act was likely to cause death, was not justified but at the same time, a wound on the neck, must at least be

considered to be ''dangerous to life'' within the meaning of Clause 8 Section 320 Indian Penal Code, and therefore, ''grievous''.

Palekar, J., too in Jai Narain Mishra and Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1972 C.A.R. 19 (S.C.) held, a penetrating wound 1-1/2"" x 1/2"" x chest wall

deep on the right side of the chest caused with a bhala and described as ''dangerous to life'' as grievous injury and in the later part of paragraph 11

called this injury as one endangering life.

The expression ''dangerous''is an adjective and the expression ''endanger'' is verb. An injury which can put life in immediate danger of death

would be an injury which can be termed as ''dangerous to life'', and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as ''dangerous to life'', he means

an injury which endangers life in terms of Clause 8 of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, for, it describes the injury ''dangerous to life'' only for the

purpose of the said clause. He instead of using the expression that this was an injury which ""endangered life'', described it that the injury was

''dangerous to life'', meaning both the time the same thing.

Mela Singh, the witness of the recovery, has not been examined by the prosecution. The recovery itself becomes doubtful in view of the

statements of PW4 and PW5 who have stated that the place of recovery was accessible to all.

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:

Attempt to murder - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused

death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall

also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the of-fender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such

punishable as is hereinbefore mentioned.

Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds in part and the conviction of the Appellant u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Keeping in

view the injuries on the person of the injured, the Appellant would accordingly be held guilty for an offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The

occurrence took place on 4.6.2007 and the appeal is pending since 2009. In view of these facts, the Appellant has suffered enough and has

undergone substantial period of his sentence. Accordingly, the sentence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code is remitted to the period already

undergone by the Appellant.

The sentence of fine is, however, enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court which shall be paid to

the complainant. The accused-Appellant shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the above modification in the sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.