- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dharma Pal And Others v. State Of Punjab
Factual and Procedural Background
The incident took place in July 1974 and involved a clash in which several persons on both sides sustained injuries. One Sant Lal died the following day, but neither the trial court nor the High Court found any accused liable for murder. Ten persons were originally tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur for offences including Section 302 read with Section 149 and other allied provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial court acquitted Baldev Raj, Hari Kishan and another accused of all charges. It convicted the remaining seven accused of varying offences: Jagdish Kumar and Gulshan Kumar under Sections 324 and 323; Tej Bhan and Hukum Chand under Section 325; and Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand under Section 307.
Both the convicted accused and the State appealed. The High Court: (i) confirmed the convictions of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand under Section 307; (ii) altered the convictions of Hukum Chand and Tej Bhan from Section 325 to Section 323 and reduced their sentence; and (iii) allowed the State’s appeal, convicting Baldev Raj under Section 324 and sentencing him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
All eight convicted persons brought the present appeal challenging the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence on record justified the convictions of the appellants, particularly in light of the defence contention that the prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence.
- Whether the injuries attributed to Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand fulfilled the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) or amounted only to an offence under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The prosecution witnesses allegedly suppressed the genesis of the incident and failed to present the whole truth, entitling all accused to the benefit of doubt.
The opinion does not set out any detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that several prosecution witnesses were themselves injured and had provided an “acceptable version” of the events. Both the trial court and the High Court had accepted their testimony, and the Court found no reason to differ from that concurrent finding.
However, after a fresh examination of the medical evidence, the Court concluded that the cases of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand were comparable to those of Hukum Chand and Tej Bhan. While the injuries inflicted by Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand were “somewhat serious,” the Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not made out. Consequently, their convictions under Section 307 and the associated sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment were unsustainable.
The Court therefore altered the legal characterization of their conduct to fall under Section 324 IPC and imposed a reduced sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment. With that modification, the Court affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences.
Holding and Implications
MODIFIED AND DISMISSED IN PART
The convictions of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand under Section 307 IPC and the five-year sentences are set aside. Both are instead convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. If they have already served this period, they are not to be taken back into custody. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
The decision primarily affects the sentences of the two appellants and does not purport to establish any new legal precedent; its implications are limited to the parties involved.
JUDGMENT
1. There are eight appellants in this appeal. They along with two others were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur under Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code and allied offences. The trial Court, however acquitted original accused No. 1 Baldev Raj and Hari Kishan, A-8 and another of all the offences. The accused Jagdish Kumar and Gulshan Kumar were convicted under Sections 324 and 323, I.P.C. and were released on probation for a period of one year. Tej Bhan and Hukum Chand were convicted under Section 325 and were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand were convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. All the convicted accused preferred an appeal and State also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of Baldev Raj. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand under Section 307 and the sentence awarded thereunder. The conviction of Hukum Chand and Tej Bhan under Section 325, I.P.C. was set aside and altered to one under Section 323, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
2. The High Court, however, allowed the appeal of State against Baldev Raj and convicted him under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by all the eight convicted accused.
3. The occurrence is said to have been taken place in the month of July, 1974. A number of injured persons from the complainant side were examined and from the record, it appears that a number of accused persons also received injuries. One Sant Lal died on the next day. Both the courts below did not convict any of the accused persons for the offence of murder. On that ground, no case is made out that they were responsible for the death.
4. It is mentioned before us that Tej Bhan died on 1-9-84 and, therefore, the appeal by him stands abated. Jagdish Kumar and Gulshan Kumar were released on probation and Amir Chand was sentenced only to the payment of fine of Rs. 250/-. Hukum Chand was convicted under Section 325, I.P.C. by the trial Court and was ultimately convicted under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced for one year which also has been served out. Baldev Raj was convicted by the High Court under Section 324 and sentenced to one year's Rule 1. The learned Counsel submits that the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the witnesses and whole truth is not placed before the Court. Therefore, all the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt. There are injured witnesses and they have come forward with an acceptable version regarding the persons and participation of the accused. Both the Courts below have accepted this evidence and we see no ground to come to a different conclusion.
5. So far as Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand are concerned, we have examined the medical evidence and we are of the view that their cases also stand on the same footing us Hukum Chand and Tej Bhan. However, the injuries inflicted by them are somewhat serious though the conviction under Section 307 is not made out. In the result, the conviction of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand under Section 307 and sentence of five years' R.I. awarded thereunder are set aside. Instead both of them are convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is dismissed. If the appellants Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand have already served out the sentence, they need not be taken into custody.
Alert