Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.335 OF 2016
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2393 of 2016]
Ramesh Kumar @ Babla …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 19.10.2015 the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed criminal appeal bearing
No.CRA S 1003 - SB of 2002 and confirmed the conviction of appellant under
Section 307 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Patiala for
which appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-.
2. The limited issue strenuously canvassed before us in this appeal is to the
effect that appellant should have been convicted under Section 324 or 326 and
not under Section 307 of the IPC and ought to have been inflicted with a lesser
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA
Date: 2016.04.22
17:46:35 IST
Reason:
punishment.
2
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid issue and the submissions, a close analysis
of the prosecution case reveals that the appellant along with other six named
accused and 3-4 unknown persons allegedly first assaulted one Rakesh
Kumar. The specific allegation against the appellant is that he was armed with
a sword and he gave a blow which hit Rakesh Kumar on his head. The
companions of Rakesh Kumar, namely complainant Ramesh Kumar and one
Sanjay ran away on their scooter but they were stopped at some distance by
parents of the appellant and there when they had fallen on the ground,
another co-accused gave sword blow hitting near the eye of the complainant
whereas the appellant gave a sword blow on the head of the complainant.
Other co-accused also allegedly caused several injuries to the complainant.
Thereafter the accused persons ran away and the injured were taken to
hospital.
4. From the narration of the case it further appears that there was clash
between two groups which resulted in injuries on both parties. All the seven
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 307 read with Section
149 of the IPC. The prosecution examined six witnesses including a doctor
PW-2 and the Investigating Officer PW-6. On considering the entire evidence
the trial court acquitted the remaining six accused persons but convicted only
the appellant, as noted already. The trial court, thus appears to have accepted
only a part of assault and injury confined to the complainant.
5. The submission on behalf of the appellant for converting the conviction
to one under Section 326 IPC though adverted to, has not been properly dealt
with by the High Court. Only two injuries out of seven on the person of the
3
complainant were caused by sharp weapon and the rest were by blunt weapon.
The two injuries by sharp weapon are shown to be incised wounds with the
following dimensions :
(1) 2.5 cm x 0.25 cm on the left parietal region of the
head.
(2) 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.25 cm nearly perpendicular
to injury no.1.
In his evidence PW-2, the doctor has declared injury no.1 and injury no.7
caused by a blunt weapon to be grievous by describing them as dangerous to
life. But in cross-examination he has opined that possibility of injury no.1 by
fall cannot be ruled out. As already noticed, as per initial version of the
occurrence a sword blow near the eye of the complainant Ramesh Kumar was
allegedly caused by another co-accused Raj Kumar Chawla whereas appellant
is alleged to have given a sword blow on the head. It is not clear from the
evidence or the discussion as to which of the two incised injuries was caused
by the appellant. Injury no.1 and 2 both are on the head and by sharp
weapon. Only one of them, injury no.1 is opined to be grievous but it is
accepted by the doctor that it may be possible by fall, obviously because doctor
has not found any depth in the said injury. In such a situation the appellant
is entitled to be treated as the author of only the injury no.2 on the head which
is said to be a simple injury but caused by a sword which is a dangerous
weapon.
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, it will not be proper to hold the appellant
guilty of causing grievous hurt to the complainant and hence for having
voluntarily caused hurt by a dangerous weapon, he deserves to be convicted
4
only for offence under Section 324 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to three years and/or with fine. Since the other co-accused
who allegedly caused some other injuries have been acquitted and the
appellant did not cause any other injury to the complainant, no case is made
out under Section 307 IPC, especially when the genesis as well as motive for
the alleged occurrence remain obscure and under haze.
7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part by converting appellant’s
conviction under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 324 IPC. On the
question of sentence, it is pertinent to note that the occurrence took place in
1997. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He claimed that he and others
went to the place of occurrence on getting information that his brother Sanjay
Kumar was assaulted by Ramesh Kumar (Complainant). He brought his
brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As noticed by trial court, parties
are involved in civil as well as criminal litigation from before. High Court has
noted that appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other
case. In such circumstances it is not deemed necessary to send the appellant
immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of the occurrence when he
appears to be 50 years of age and fully settled in life.
8. In view of aforesaid, in our view the ends of justice would be met by
granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. We order
accordingly and direct that the appellant be released on executing appropriate
bond before the trial court to appear and receive sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 1(one) year when called upon to do so and in the meantime
5
to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
9. With the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence the appeal is
allowed in part.
.…………………………………….J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
……………………………………..J.
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
April 22, 2016.
6
ITEM NO.1A IN COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No.335/2016
RAMESH KUMAR @ BABLA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s)
Date : 22/04/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
Judgment today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Shiva Kirti Singh pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak
Misra and His Lordship.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
(Chetan Kumar)
(H.S. Parasher)
Court Master
Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)