State of Punjab vs Anil Kumar

A.S. Nehra, J.

State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the decision dated April 20, 1987 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by which Anil Kumar, accusedrespondent, has been convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo a little more than ten months'' rigorous imprisonment which he had already suffered as detention during the investigation and trial of the case.

The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:

The services of Anil Kumar accused were terminated by M/s Satluj Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana, sometime prior to the present occurrence. On June 5, 1986, the accused came to the premises of the factory in order to see the employer, but Bansi Lal injured (PW2), who was working as a peon in that factory for the last ten years, did not allow him to see the employer which resulted in the exchange of hot words. On June 7, 1986, at about 4.15 P.M., Bansi Lal, injured, went to the Tea Stall of Tehal Singh (PW4) for fetching tea, when Anil Kumar accused happened to accost him there and started abusing him saying that he was responsible for the termination of his services. Bansi Lal PW restrained the accused from doing so, whereupon the accused stabbed him on the right flank with a spring knife. On receipt of knife injury, Bansi Lal injured PW fell on the ground. PW3 Charanjit Singh PW 4 Tehal Singh and Onkar Singh, who were present there, raised alarm, upon which the accused fled away alongwith the knife.

Dr. Kulwant Singh (PW7) examined Bansi Lal injured on the same day at 5.00 p.m. and found an incised wound measuring 11/4" x 1/4" on the right illiac region with fresh bleeding. He did not probe the depth of the injury. The corresponding cuts on the shirt and banian were also observed by the doctor. The injury was kept under observation.

Thereafter the injured was removed to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, for treatment where Dr. George Kavoor (PW6) operated upon him on the same evening at 8.10 p.m. and he found perforation of the ileum and anterior wall of coecum, besides the presence of retroperitoneal and sub coceal haematoma.

A.S.I. Romesh Chander (PW5), on receipt of intimation at about 4.35 p.m. on that day regarding the admission of Bansi Lal, injured, in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, rushed there and thereafter to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana on learning about his removal there. He elicited the opinion of the doctor about the fitness of Bansi Lal injured to make a statement and thereafter recorded his statement, Ex. PB, which was concluded at 8.15 p.m. and on its basis a case under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana, by S.I. Surjit singh. Thereafter, ASI Romesh Chander arrived at the spot and recorded the statements of Tehal Singh, Charanjit Singh and Onkar Singh witnesses. He also prepared the visual site plan, Ex. PJ, of the spot. He observed some bloodstains in front of the shop of Tehal Singh PW, but did not lift the same being not in a position to be lifted. On receipt of injury report from the doctor, the offence was got changed to one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Anil Kumar accused was produced before ASI Romesh Chander on June 12, 1986 by his brother and he was arrested. On his interrogation on June 15, 1986, the accused disclosed before ASI Romesh Chander vide his statement Ex. PE that he had kept concealed (buried) a kamanidar knife in a park situated near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he led the police party to the said place and got recovered knife, Ex. P3, after digging some earth. A separate case under Section 25 of the Act was got registered against the accused. Sketch of the knife, Ex, PG, was also prepared and the knife, Ex. P3, was seized vide Memo Ex. PF, in the presence of Charanjit Singh and HC Kulwant Singh.

On June 20, 1986, Nachhattar Singh, Draftsman, visited the spot and prepared its scaled plan, Ex. PA, at the pointing out by Tehal Singh (PW4).

The prosecution to prove its case examined seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Nachhattar Singh, Draftsman, P.W.2 Bansi Lal injured, P.W.3 Charanjit alias Kala, PW4, Tehal Singh, PW6 Dr. George Kavoor and PW 7 Dr. Kulwant Singh.

At the trial, the accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded innocence and false implication, contending that on June 7, 1986 he had gone to the factory for collecting his wages at about 5.00 p.m. and that Charanjit, Bansi Lal, witnesses, Ashok Kumar and R.K. Khosla owners of the hosiery kept him confined inside the hosiery and handed him over to the police. He offered to lead evidence in defence and did summon Sarwan Singh, Manager of the Setluj Hosiery but changed his mind later on and gave him up as being unnecessary.

The trial Court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. PW7 Dr. Kulwant Singh examined the injury on the person of Bansi Lal injured PW and found one incised wound 11/4 cm x 1/4 cm on the right illiac region with fresh bleeding from it. He kept the injury under observation subject to the opinion of Surgical Specialist. It was concluded by the trial Court that the presence of cut on the shirt and banian corresponding to the injury along with the factum that it was located on the vital portion of the body of the victim clearly rules out of it being self suffered of selfinflicted.

Dr. George Kavoor (PW6) operated upon the injury of Bansi Lal injured PW on the evening of the occurrence and found present 1200 Mls of old blood in the peritonium cavity. He also observed 2 cm long perforation of the ileum and 2 Cms long perforation in the anterior wall of coecum. Retroperitoneal and sub conceal haematoma was also found present. The trial Court held that the doctor rightly opined that the injured could have died in case the timely medical aid was not provided. It further held that the medical evidence clearly established that the injury had endangered the life of Bansi Lal; that it could not be selfsuffered and that it was caused with a sharp pointed weapon like a knife in a stabbing manner.

Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that Anil Kumar, accusedrespondent, had given stab injury; that Bansi Lal injured would have died in case timely medical aid was not provided to him and in case he would not have been operated upon and that, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove a case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, against Anil Kumar and the learned trial Court had erred in law in convicting the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the accused respondent, has contended that the accused never intended to cause such a bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the provisions of clause eighthly of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, are well attracted to the facts of the present case as the injury was found dangerous to life and not being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Tej Ram v. State of Punjab, 1978 C.L.R. (Pb. & Hr.) 76. In Tej Ram''s case (supra), the injury had ruptured lung of the victim and was described by the doctor as dangerous to life. It was held by this Court that the offence would fall under Section 326 and not under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Crl. L.J. 1226. In that case, the medical evidence revealed the presence on a stab injury on the left side of the chest of the victim, which was described by the doctor as dangerous to life. After elaborate discussion, this Court held that the expression ''dangerous'' is an adjective and the expression ''endanger'' is verb and that the injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as ''dangerous to life''. It was held that the appellant in that case had committed the offence under section 326 and not under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we hold that the injury suffered by Bansi Lal injured (PW2) was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and he had been rightly convicted under section 326, Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Dhaliwal has further contended that the trial Court has taken a lenient view while imposing sentence on Anil Kumar accused. He had further contended that the trial Court has erred in holding that there was verbal altercation between the injured and the accused just before the accused gave a stab injury with a knife to the injured. In support of his argument, he has referred to the statement of Bansi Lal injured (PW2), who stated that on June 7, 1986, he went to the Tea Stall of Tehal Singh (PW4) to bring tea; that when he reached the shop of Tehal Singh, Charanjit Singh and Onkar Singh were present there; that Anil Kumar accused was already present; that on seeing him Anil Kumar accused hurled abuses upon him and raised a lalkara that he was responsible for the termination of his services; that he desisted the accused from abusing him and that simultaneously the accused took out a Kamanidar knife from his pocket and gave a knife blow on the right side of his abdomen. He has further contended that the sentence awarded to Anil Kumar accused is on the lower side and, therefore, this is a fit case in which sentence of Anil Kumar accused be enhanced. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Chadha, counsel for the accusedrespondent, has contended that the accused is a sole breadearner of his aged parents; that the trial Court decided this case on April 20, 1987; that in case the accusedrespondent is now sent to Jail, then his family would suffer great hardship and that therefore this is a fit case in which a lenient view should be taken.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we hold that the trial Court has erred in law in sentencing the accusedrespondent to a little more than ten months'' imprisonment only and that this is a fit case where the accusedrespondent should have been awarded sentence of imprisonment of more than two years. At the time of occurrence, the accusedrespondent was 27 years old and by now he must have settled with his family. Therefore, we are not inclined to send him to Jail at this stage after about 81/2 years of the decision of the trial Court. The sentence of the accusedrespondent is enhanced and in addition to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Bansi Lal injured (PW2)

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.