Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 1023-SB of 1997.

Attorney(S)

For the Appellants :- Raj Mohan Singh
Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Navneet Singh
Assistant Advocate General Haryana.

Judges

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Acts

clause 8 of Section 320, Indian Penal Code,
Section 326 IPC to Section 325 GIC.14.
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC,
Section 335 IPC. Non-payment
Exception 1, Section 300.13.
Section 173 Cr.P.C
Section 313 Cr.P.C

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court's Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Criminal Appeal No. 1023-SB of 1997 was preferred by Dalip Singh (son of Phoola Ram), his son-in-law Surat Bhan @ Surja and his son Sant Kumar against the judgment dated 09.12.1997 and order dated 12.12.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. In the impugned decision, the appellants were acquitted of offences under Section 307 IPC but convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution case (FIR Ex.PC/2) was lodged by Charanjit Kaur (PW-2). The narrative in the FIR, summarised from the opinion, is:

Complainant's husband and another tenant were employed in an Engineering College; the accused resided adjacent and were in the business of selling/repairing coolers.
The dispute reportedly arose from repair/service of a cooler; the next day a panchayat meeting was convened to address the matter.
At the panchayat, a quarrel occurred: Surja is said to have seized Baldev Singh (PW-6); Dalip allegedly struck Baldev with a lathi on the head; Sant Kumar allegedly struck with a screwdriver to the chest; Surja allegedly inflicted a knife blow; the accused fled with the weapons.
Baldev Singh was medically examined and four injuries were noted; he was later operated upon, with evidence of a small intestine perforation.

After investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted, charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC were framed, the appellants pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded. Prosecution examined several witnesses including medical officers; defence denied the allegations in answer to Section 313 Cr.P.C. questions and no defence evidence was led.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the injuries sustained by the injured (Baldev Singh PW-6) could be held to be "grievous" (dangerous to life) in the absence of direct evidence of an examining doctor's opinion on that point being placed on record.
Whether the facts showed premeditation/common intention attracting Section 34 IPC along with the charged offences, or whether the acts were spontaneous and arose from grave and sudden provocation.
If the offences were to be recharacterised (conviction converted) given a finding of spontaneous occurrence and provocation, what are the appropriate offences and sentences to be imposed on each accused?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments (as presented in the opinion)

Primary submission: The senior resident Dr. Vikas Narang, who examined the injured, was not examined in court and his opinion is not on the record (signatures not proved). Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely on an opinion that the injuries were dangerous to life; accordingly, conviction under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained and the acquittal under Section 307 IPC was proper.
There was no prior enmity; the incident arose from a petty dispute about cooler repair and occurred spontaneously. The meeting (panchayat) produced exchange of hot words; the accused had invited the injured to the meeting. This suggests the occurrence happened in the heat of the moment, possibly under provocation.
Because the incident was spontaneous and without premeditation, Section 34 IPC (common intention) should not apply; each accused should be held responsible only for his own acts.

The opinion does not set out any detailed submissions from the prosecution/State within the text beyond the prosecution evidence presented at trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, 1982 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Vol. II) 496	Interpretation of the expression "dangerous to life" within Clause (eighthly) of Section 320 IPC — an injury described as "dangerous to life" may be treated as one endangering life; the Court should form its own view of the nature of injuries in addition to expert evidence.	The court relied on Atma Singh to hold that no express medical opinion is necessary to establish that an injury "endangers life" for the purposes of Section 320; the court applied the principle that it must examine the nature, location and dimensions of the injury and could form its own conclusion that injury No.2 (clean lacerated wound with intestinal perforation) was grievous.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds in several distinct steps, following the submissions made on behalf of the appellants:

On the argument that the absence of Dr. Vikas Narang's testimony/opinion precludes a finding that injuries were dangerous to life: the court examined Clause (eighthly) of Section 320 IPC (definition of "grievous") and held that the classification of an injury as endangering life does not require an express medical opinion on the record. The court relied upon and reproduced reasoning from Atma Singh that the terms "dangerous" and "endanger" are equivalent in effect for the clause, and that the judicial fact-finding role requires the court to examine the nature, dimension and consequences of injury and form its own view even if expert opinion is given.
The court then applied those principles to the medical evidence before it: injury No.2 was a "clean lacerated wound" and the medical evidence (PW-9 Dr. Avinash Kumar) established a perforation of the small intestine and stated that, had the operation not been performed in time, the injury could have proved fatal. The defence was aware of this medical fact and had specifically elicited the meaning of "dangerous" from PW-9. On these facts (nature of wound and intestinal perforation), the court concluded that the trial court was right in treating the injury as grievous and that the finding of grievous hurt was sustainable.
Concerning premeditation and Section 34 IPC: the court accepted the appellants' factual premise that there was no prior enmity and that the incident arose from a petty dispute about a cooler which culminated in an exchange of hot words at the panchayat. The court concluded that the occurrence took place "on the spur of the moment" and that the probability of grave and sudden provocation by the injured could not be ruled out. Consequently, the court held that Section 34 was not attracted — each accused had to be assessed for his individual acts rather than a shared common intention to cause grievous hurt.
On conversion of the offences: because the court found spontaneous occurrence and possible provocation, it converted the convictions from Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by dangerous weapon) to lesser/alternative offences. The opinion records a conversion: first it states conversion from Section 326 to Section 325 (the opinion uses the term "Section 325 GIC" which appears as a transcription in the text). Subsequently, after considering the statutory definition of "voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation", the court specifically held that the author of injury No.2 (referred to as "Suraj Ram"/"Surja" in the text) was liable under Section 335 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation) and that the other accused were liable under Section 324 IPC (causing hurt by dangerous weapons — as reflected in the sentence outcome).
Sentencing analysis: the court balanced aggravating facts (the injured required surgical intervention, had an intestinal perforation and was admitted to PGI until 19 June 1993; the injury was life-threatening without timely surgery) against mitigating considerations (the incident occurred in 1993 and the accused had endured a protracted trial of more than 14 years; the appellants had already undergone some period of actual custody — described as "few days more than one month"). Taking into account these factors, the court reduced/adjusted sentences consistent with the converted convictions.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The appeal was disposed of with modifications in the convictions and sentences. The court converted the earlier conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC into convictions for different offences based on the findings of spontaneity and provocation and on the court's own evaluation of the injuries.

Specific Disposition and Sentences as Announced:

Surja (also referred to in the opinion as "Suraj Ram" / "Suraj Bhan / Surat Bhan @ Surja"): held liable for the offence under Section 335 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation). Sentence: two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Non-payment of the fine would attract three months rigorous imprisonment.
Dalip Singh and Suraj Bhan (the opinion identifies both as liable under Section 324 IPC): each sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Non-payment of the fine would attract two months rigorous imprisonment.
With these modifications of conviction and sentence, the present appeal was disposed of and the court ordered accordingly.

Implications: The direct effect on the parties is the modification of convictions and reduction/recharacterisation of sentences as specified above. The opinion applies an existing precedent (Atma Singh) on how a court may assess whether an injury is "dangerous to life" and confirms that a court must form its own view on the nature of injuries in the light of the evidence; the decision does not purport to lay down a new doctrinal precedent beyond application of that authority. The opinion does not articulate broader policy implications beyond the case-specific conversion of offences and sentencing exercise.

Order: "Order accordingly." (as recorded in the opinion)

Show full summary ...

Dalip Singh v. State Of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) — Criminal appeal No. 1023-SB of 1997 has been preferred by Dalip Singh son of Phoola Ram; his son-in-law Surat Bhan @ Surja and his son Sant Kumar aggrieved against the judgment dated 09.12.1997 and order dated 12.12.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby they have been acquitted for the offences under Section 307 IPC but have been convicted for offences under Section 326 read with 34 IPC to five years RI.

2. Prosecution case can be noticed from FIR (Ex.PC/2). FIR was lodged at the instance of Charanjit Kaur PW-2, who stated that her husband is in a service in Engineering College and they are residing in Kurukshetra in the house of Om Parkash. In the same house, one Subhash was also tenant. He was also employed in Engineering College. The three accused were residing adjacent to the house, where complainant was residing. Suraj Bhan, Sant Kumar and his father-in-law Dalip Singh were engaged in the business of selling and repairing coolers. It is stated that husband of the complainant got a cooler repaired from appellant Suraj Bhan and Sant Kumar. Sant Kumar is said to have come to the house of complainant to repair the cooler, when complaint was made by the complainant Charanjit Kaur PW-2 that the cooler, most of the time remains out of order. As per FIR, complainant Charanjit Kaur was replied back by the accused that since cooler is daily in need of repair, on getting it repaired one time complainant party has not purchased them (accused party). Charanjit Kaur further stated that when her husband returned in the evening, she narrated the offensive language used by the accused and some exchange of hot words ensued between husband of complainant and accused. Next day, panchayat was held, where Baldev Singh PW-6 had alone gone to attend the panchayat meeting. It is stated that Charanjit Kaur stayed at the roof of her house along with uncle Pirthi and Joginder, cousin of Baldev Singh. It is further stated that in panchayat meeting, there were exchange of hot words, whereupon Surja caught hold of Baldev Singh. Dalip was having a lathi with a balam and he gave a blow on the head of Baldev Singh, due to which Baldev Singh fell down. Sant Kumar gave a blow with screw driver, which was in his hand, on the chest. Surja gave a knife blow and Sant Kumar gave another blow with his screw driver in the chest. Charanjit Kaur along with uncle Pirthi and Joginder reached the spot and the accused decamped from the spot along with weapons. Injured was taken firstly to LNGP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where he was medico-legally examined. Four injuries were found on his person.

3. After the FIR was investigated, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted and charge was framed against the appellants for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Dr. J.P Bharal, PW-1 examined Baldev Singh PW-6 on 11th June, 1993 at 10.30 p.m He noticed following injuries on his person :

1. Deep lacerated wound on the left side of scalp .5 cm × 1 cm in size.

2. 1 cm × 1 cm clean lacerated wound (cruciate slaped) 7.5 cm infero lateral/right side of umbilicus.

3. 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm punctured wound. Medial to the left nipple.

4. 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm punctured wound 7.5 cm in inferolateral to the right nipple.

5. PW-3 Dr. G.R Verma is an Associate Professor of Department of Surgery. He was summoned to prove PGI record as Dr. Vishal Narang is said to have died, who has given the treatment. PW-9 Dr. Avinash Kumar was a part of the team, which performed operation of the abdomen of Baldev Singh. As per him, had the operation not been performed in time, the injury could have been proved fatal.

6. PW-9 Dr. Avinash Kumar has categorically stated that there was a perforation of the small intestine. PW-2 Charanjit Kaur reiterated the version given by her in the FIR. Injured Baldev Singh appeared as PW-6. He is the injured. He gave origin and genesis of the occurrence and also narrated sequence in which injuries were given to him. PW-4 Sohan Singh was posted as Inspector. He had submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and had partly investigated the case. PW-5 Mukesh Kumar, Draftsman prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. PW-7 Amar Singh is a Head Constable, who sought opinion of the Doctor regarding the nature of injuries. PW-8 Inder Singh is the investigating officer. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused have denied having caused any injury. No defence evidence was led by the appellant.

7. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh appearing for the appellants has made primarily three submissions. His first submission is that Dr. Vikas Narang, Senior Resident who had examined the injured Baldev Singh PW-6, had not been examined. His opinion has not been brought on the record, as nobody has been able to prove his signatures, rather he states that no signatures of Dr. Vikas Narang were on the opinion. Therefore, he says that the injuries were dangerous to life, this opinion cannot be construed against the appellants to hold that they have caused grievous injuries. In the same manner, Mr. Raj Mohan Singh has stated that rightly appellants have been acquitted for the offences under Section 307 IPC, as no danger to life of injured could be proved. He has further stated that since there is no opinion regarding the injury being grievous, the conviction under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained. I am unable to accept this argument of Mr. Raj Mohan Singh. Clause eighthly of Section 320 reads as under :

“320. Eighthly- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”

8. A simple perusal of clause eighthly of Section 320 reveals that any injury, which endangers life is grievous. No express opinion is required. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, 1982 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Vol. II) 496, that the expression ‘dangerous to life’ will fall a under Clause eighthly as endangering life and therefore same is liable to conviction under Section 326 IPC if the weapon used is incised.

9. The following observation's of Atma Singh's case supra are necessary to be reproduced here :—

“13. 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.

…………………

17. We are of the view that the Court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert's opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life the Court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned.

10. There is no dispute that injury No. 2 is a clean lacerated wound. Furthermore, it has come in evidence that there was a perforation of small intestine. Furthermore, defence was conscious of this fact therefore, PW-9 Dr. Avinash Kumar was specifically asked to which he replied in affirmative that the ‘dangerous’ means ‘endangering life’. Therefore, rightly the learned trial Court held that injury was grievous in nature.

11. Second argument raised by Mr. Raj Mohan Singh is that in the present case there was no previous enmity between the parties. On a petty matter of repair of the cooler an altercation had taken place, a day before occurrence. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh has further stated that on the day of occurrence also, it was the accused who requested Baldev Singh PW-6 to attend the meeting of panchayat. It has been stated by PW-2 Charanjit Kaur and also by PW-6 Baldev Singh that in the panchayat there was exchange of hot words.

12. Therefore, I find that there is no doubt that occurrence in the present case, has taken place on spur of the moment without any premeditation, spontaneously. I agree with this submission of Mr. Raj Mohan Singh that since the accused have invited injured Baldev Singh PW-6 in panchayat meeting, there was exchange of hot words, the accused never wanted to cause injury but something happened at the spot, due to which the present occurrence has taken place. It cannot be ruled out that some provocation was caused by the injured himself which resulted into injury. Section 335 IPC reads as under :

“335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation - Whoever [voluntarily] causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be publishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation - The last two sections are subject to the same provisos as Exception 1, Section 300.”

13. Since I have already held that there was no enmity between the parties, however on a petty issue of repair of the cooler, there was exchange of hot words in a panchayat, and probability of injured being responsible for grave and sudden provocation cannot be ruled up. I convert offence from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 GIC.

14. Third submission made by Mr. Raj Mohan Singh is that once occurrence has taken place suddenly on the heat of moment without any premeditation, Section 34 IPC will not be attracted as each accused will be responsible for his own act and the common intention cannot be gathered in such circumstances. In the present case, apparently parties met to resolve their altercation in a panchayat meeting. There was exchange of hot words. The intention of all accused was not to cause grievous injuries. Therefore, each accused will be responsible for his own act.

15. To conclude, I hold that Suraj Ram author of injury No. 2 is liable for offence under Section 335 IPC, whereas other accused are liable for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Once I have converted offence and held that Section 34 is not attracted this Court has to discharge onus to determine the sentence. The courts, while awarding sentence have to harmonize mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The injured was working in an Engineering College. He suffered injuries on 11th June, 1993. He was operated upon on 12th June, 1993. There was a perforation of small intestine. He remained admitted in PGI upto 19th June, 1993. He was to be rushed from Kurukshetra in an Ambulance to PGI as the injury was a life threatening. Maximum sentence prescribed under Section 335 is four years. At the same time, since the occurrence has taken place in 1993 accused have already suffered a protracted trial of more than 14 years. As per Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, accused have also undergone actual sentence i.e few days more than one month.

Taking into account all the circumstances Surja is awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 335 IPC. Non-payment of fine will make him liable to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Since I have held Dalip Singh and Suraj Bhan liable under Section 324 IPC, they are awarded one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, non-payment of same shall make them liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. With these modifications, present appeal is disposed off.

Order accordingly.

Dalip Singh v. State Of Haryana

Structured Summary of the Court's Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments (as presented in the opinion)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Dalip Singh v. State Of Haryana

Comments