Siri Om vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the order dated 24.1.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who convicted the appellant Siri Om under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo R.I. for one month.

The brief facts of the case can be summarised as follows :

Appellant faced trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397, IPC. As per the allegations of the prosecution, Ram Kumar, complainant, was working as a Health Inspector at Kiloi. On 15.1.1992, he had gone to the dispensary of Village Ladhot. His son Bijender Singh came there in order to inform him about the arrival of certain guests at his house in Village Bohar, which was at a distance of 6/7 KMs from Village Ladhot. At about 1.45 P.M., Ram Kumar picked up his scooter No. HR126599 and started for his Village via Canal Bank. His son went to Rohtak from there. At about 2.10 P.M., when the complainant reached at RD No. 1223719 KM of the Canal Bank, two youngmen were standing along with their scooter bearing No. DL4S316 and they were trying to repair the plug of the scooter. They signalled the complainant to stop and asked him to give the plug panna from his scooter. The complainant stopped and gave the instrument. Those two persons repaired their scooter and returned the plug panna. The moment the complainant got his plug panna and was placing it in the tool box of his scooter, both the youngmen pounced upon him and asked him to hand over to them whatever he had. On the refusal of the complainant to accede to the command of those two persons, they branded a pistol and threatened to shoot the complainant down. In the meanwhile, one of those two persons took out a knife and gave a knife blow in the stomach of the complainant. They snatched a sum of Rs. 1,200/ from the pocket of the complainant and another sum of Rs. 1,000/, which was lying in the tool box of the scooter of the complainant. They threw the key of the scooter in the nearby canal and the scooter in the nearby bushes and ran away from the place of occurrence towards the side of Sonepat on scooter No. DL4S316. The complainant, then, pushed his punctured stomach with his hand and he went to the Village Ladhot. He met another Ram Kumar, a Health Worker in the dispensary, and told him the entire occurrence. Ram Kumar brought the complainant to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, for treatment where Dr. S.P. Chugh, medically examined the complainant and sent a ruqa, Ex. PB, to the Police Post, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, at 4.15 P.M. S.I. Abdul Majid obtained the advice of the doctor if the complainant was fit to make the statement or not. The doctor''s advice was that since the patient was lying in the O.T., he was unfit to make the statement. The S.I. again contacted the doctor on 16.1.1992 when the injured Ram Kumar was declared fit to make the statement. Accordingly, his statement, Ex. PF, was recorded. It was read over and explained to the complainant. On the basis of the statement, Exh. PF, formal FIR, Ex. PF/1, was recorded. The statements of Ram Kumar s/o Maniphool and Bijender, son of the complainant, were also recorded during the course of investigation. Rough site plan, Exh. PK, of the place of occurrence was prepared. The scooter of the complainant was taken into possession and it was handed over to the son of the complainant. AppellantSiri Om was arrested on 10.5.1992 by the CIA Staff, Bhiwani, in another case FIR 62 of 1991 under Section 382 IPC, pertaining to Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, and during the course of interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure statement, Ex. PH, with regard to the present occurrence. Accordingly, the appellant was also arrested in the present case on 1.6.1992. He was directed to get his face muffled and was produced before the Magistrate on 2.6.1992. The accused refused to join the identification parade. During the course of investigation, the appellant also stated that the name of his coaccused was Om Parkash, who was allegedly present with him at the time of the present occurrence. The said Om Parkash was declared a proclaimed offender. After completing the formalities of the investigation, the present appellant was sentup to stand trial under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC in the court of the Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the appellant to the court of Sessions which framed the charge under Section 394/397 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the doctor and the injured. The statement of the injured Ram Kumar, PW2, was also corroborated by the statement of PW3 Ram Kumar.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, the appellant examined Munne Ram, DW1, who deposed that the appellant was arrested by the police on 6.4.1992 from Village Badli.

The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offence under Section 394/397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years.

I have heard Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate, for the respondent, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Two fold submissions were raised by the counsel for the appellant in order to secure acquittal for his client. Firstly, that there is no cogent evidence to establish that at the time of the occurrence, the present appellant was there along with Om Parkash. This court is not convinced with this submission raised by the counsel for the appellant in view of the categorical statement of PW2 Ram Kumar, who is an injured witness. This witness has no axe to grind visavis the appellant. The story of the prosecution, on the contrary, is that the injured firstly gave a plug panna to the appellant for effecting the repair of the scooter. Some part of the money was lying in the tool box of the scooter and some money was in the possession of the injured. It appears that the appellant became greedy on seeing the currency lying in the tool box of the scooter of the injured and he and his companion decided to decamp the complainant of the money and in that process gave knife blow. Ram Kumar is an injured witness. His testimony stands on a strong pedestal. His statement has been corroborated by the medical evidence and the statement of Ram Kumar PW3 to whom the entire occurrence was disclosed by the injured without any waste of time. This court is also inclined to believe the statement of Ram Kumar, PW3, who has also no axe to grind against the appellant. His statement cannot be rejected on the plea that he is the friend of PW2, Ram Kumar. The conduct of Ram Kumar, PW2, and that of Ram Kumar, PW3, is quite natural and, therefore, I am inclined to affirm the findings of the trial Court that Ram Kumar, PW2, had the occasion to identify his assailant, especially when the occurrence had taken place during day time.

The second submission which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that in this case the provisions of Section 397, IPC, are not attracted. The counsel submits that the knife with which the injury was caused to Ram Kumar has not been recovered and without the recovery of the knife, it cannot be said that the weapon was deadly. There is a fallacy in the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant. According to the provisions of Section 397, IPC, if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. Thus, this section can be divided into two parts. If a robbery or dacoity is committed with a deadly weapon and that deadly weapon is not recovered or produced, the ingredients of Section 397 would not be attracted but if it is established on the record that the injured person had suffered grievous hurts or an attempt was made to cause his death, in that eventuality, the production of the weapon with which the injury was suffered is not required. Now, it is to be seen that what type of injury was suffered by Ram Kumar. During the course of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of PW1 Dr. S.P. Chugh. This doctor medically examined the injured and found the following solitary injury :

"A punctured wound 3 cm x 2 cm (depth under observation) over the lower abdomen on the right side, 2 cm from midline. A portion of the small cut was protruding out of the wound."

Nature of the injury, thus, suggests, that it was a grievous hurt. The things do not end here. It has been categorically stated by this doctor that the injury of Ram Kumar could be as a result of a knife blow and this injury could prove dangerous to life if timely medical aid had not been given to the injured. The extent of damage caused to the person of the injured clearly shows that this injury was grievous in nature and I am not going to agree with the submission raised by the counsel for the appellant that this injury of Ram Kumar was simple in nature and is not covered by the provisions of Section 320, IPC.

In this view of the matter, I repell the second argument raised by the counsel for the appellant.

No other point has been urged.

I do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.