text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State contended that the evidence of all the witnesses satisfactorily establishes the overt act of the accused persons and Jagdish (PW-5) and Mange Ram (PW-6) being the injured witnesses, the veracity of these witnesses cannot be doubted ARG |
It was submitted that the medical evidence sufficiently corroborated the oral evidence and the prosecution has established the intention of the 2nd accused in causing attempt to commit murder of Sukhbir and in appreciation of the evidence, courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second accused u/s ARG |
307 IPC and the same warrants no interference ARG |
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the impugned judgment and perused the materials on record Ratio |
As it emerges from the evidence, complainant Jagdish (PW-5) and his two sons Sukhbir and Mange Ram were cutting pullas Ratio |
The accused party went there and asked them not to cut the pullas Ratio |
In the wordy altercation, second accused Rajbir Ratio |
Raju gave pharsi blows on the head of Sukhbir Ratio |
PWs 5 & 6 have clearly spoken about the overt act of the accused that A-1 Jage Ram attacked and caused injury to PW-5 Jagdish with jaily blows and that second accused Rajbir Ratio |
Raju attacked on the head of Sukhbir with pharsi Ratio |
They have also stated that Madan and Rakesh caused injuries to PW5-Jagdish with lathi on shoulder and left elbow respectively Ratio |
PW Ratio |
2- Dr. Pardeep Kumar in his evidence stated that he has examined PWs 5 and 6 and noted the injuries on the body of PWs 5 and 6 and issued wound certificates Ratio |
Evidence of PWs 5 and 6 is amply corroborated by medical evidence Ratio |
PWs 5 and 6 being injured witnesses, their evidence is entitled to great weight Ratio |
Cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of injured witnesses Ratio |
In the light of the fact that PWs 5 and 6 were injured witnesses, courts below tested their evidence for its credibility and recorded concurrent findings that PWs 5 and 6 are trustworthy witnesses Ratio |
We find no reason to take a different view Ratio |
Appellants have raised the contention that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that A-2 Rajbir attempted to commit murder of Sukhbir ARG |
It was submitted that injured person Sukhbir was neither examined nor medical evidence like CT Scan, x-ray and operational notes and Sukhbir were produced to corroborate the oral evidence and while so courts below erred in convicting second accused Rajbir ARG |
Dr. Pardeep Kumar-PW-2, who examined Sukhbir found during his medico-legal examination a lacerated wound in the middle of the top of the skull FAC |
Injured-Sukhkbir was found vomiting in the hospital and he was examined by a Neuro Surgeon Dr. Hilol Kanti Pal (PW-9) of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi on 19.11.1994, i.e. the day after the incident FAC |
PW-9 has stated that Sukhbir was unconscious since 2.00 P.M. on 18.11.1994 and was deeply comatose with irregularity of pupils and a laceration was diagnosed on the right front parietal region FAC |
Further, PW-9 has stated that during the CT scan, it was revealed that a large extra-dural haemotoma was present in the frontal region with mass effect and to avoid further deterioration of his condition, he was operated upon by frontal trephine craniopmy an haemotoma measuring about 125 ml was evacuated FAC |
PW-9 FAC |
stated that had not the operation been conducted on Sukhbir and had not the extra-dural haemotoma removed by operation urgently, the head injury caused to Sukhbir would have caused his death FAC |
As noted by the High Court, it is thus brought on evidence that had not surgical assistance been given to Sukhbir, he would have definitely died FAC |
For the purpose of conviction u/s Ratio |
307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused Ratio |
The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness Ratio |
Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case Ratio |
To justify a conviction u/s Ratio |
307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused Ratio |
Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances Ratio |
The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc Ratio |
In the case of State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors PRE |
AIR 2009 PRE |
SC 1642 PRE |
2009) 4 SCC 26 2009 Indlaw SC 92, the scope of intention for attracting conviction u/s PRE |
307 IPC was elaborated and it was held as under PRE |
It is sufficient to justify a conviction u/s PRE |
307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof PRE |
It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted PRE |
The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any PRE |
The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section PRE |
Therefore, an accused charged u/s PRE |
307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt PRE |
This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 1983 Indlaw SC 414, Girija Shanker v. State of U.P.(2004) 3 SCC 793 2004 Indlaw SC 78 and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27 2004 Indlaw SC 117 PRE |
Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case PRE |
The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of S. 307 IPC PRE |
The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury PRE |
State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 2005 Indlaw SC 413 Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats PRE |
It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc PRE |
This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.(1991) 3 SCC 471 1991 Indlaw SC 683 PRE |
Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the 2nd appellant u/s Ratio |
In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir Ratio |
307 IPC is unassailable Ratio |
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the second appellant is in custody for more than three years and since the occurrence was in the year 1994, prayed for reduction of the sentence imposed on the second appellant to the period already undergone ARG |
Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors (1988) 4 SCC 551 1988 Indlaw SC 27., learned counsel for the appellants additionally submitted that in terms of S. 357 (3) Cr ARG |
P.C. that the compensation may be awarded to the victim and the sentence be modified to the period already undergone ARG |
For the conviction u/s Ratio |
307 IPC, courts below imposed upon the 2nd appellant rigorous imprisonment of five years, while imposing punishment, courts have an obligation to award appropriate punishment Ratio |
Question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion and the same has to be exercised by the courts taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances Ratio |
What sentence would meet the ends of justice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity of the offence, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances PRE |
Vide State of M.P. vs. Bablu Natt (2009) 2 SCC 272 2008 Indlaw SC 2027; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 2012 Indlaw SC 12 and Soman vs. State of Kerala (2013) 11 SCC 382 2012 Indlaw SC PRE |
In the light of the above, considering the case in hand, the occurrence was of the year 1994 when the complainant party was cutting pullas, the accused asked them not to cut the pullas which resulted in the wordy altercation Ratio |
In the heat of passion, the accused have caused injuries to the complainant party Ratio |
The second accused Rajbir RPC |
Raju is in custody Ratio |
He surrendered on 5.1.2012 and is stated to be in custody since then, for more than three years Ratio |
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the period of sentence of five years may be reduced to three years apart from directing the second appellant Rajbir Ratio |
Raju to pay substantial compensation to injured-Sukhbir Ratio |
As noticed above, injured-Sukhbir sustained grievous head injuries and was deeply comatose and was in a state of shock and trauma Ratio |
Learned counsel for the injured-witness submitted that for quite some time injured-Sukhbir was unconscious and thereafter suffering from mental trauma ARG |
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by Sukhbir and the period of treatment and other circumstances, we are of the view that, it would be appropriate to direct second appellant- accused Rajbir Ratio |
Raju to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to the injured-Sukhbir Ratio |
When the matter came up for hearing on 14.10.2014, learned counsel for the appellants informed the Court that he had offered Rs.5,00,000/- by way of demand draft towards compensation to the injured-Sukhbir in the presence of the Sarpanch of the village which he has refused to receive the same Ratio |
The said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is now kept in fixed deposit in the Registry of this Court Ratio |
For inflicting blows on PW-5 Jagidsh with jaily A-1 Jage Ram was convicted u/s RLC |
325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A-3 and A-4 have also given lathis blows to PW-5 and were convicted u/s. 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the High Court RLC |
Having regard to the fact that the occurrence was of the year 1994, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Jage Ram (A-1), Madan (A-3) and Rakesh (A-4) is reduced to the period already undergone by them Ratio |
The conviction of A-1 u/s RPC |
325 IPC, A-3 and A- 4 u/s RPC |
323 IPC is confirmed and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by each of them RPC |
The conviction of second accused Rajbir RPC |
307 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment of five years is reduced to the period already undergone and additionally the second accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the injured witness-Sukhbir RPC |
Compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited in this Court by the 2nd appellant shall be paid to the injured witness-Sukhbir RPC |
Raju shall deposit the balance compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before the trial court within three months from the date of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall also be paid to the injured witness-Sukhbir RPC |
On failure to deposit the balance compensation, the second appellant Rajbir RPC |
Raju shall undergo default sentence of one year RPC |
The appeal is allowed to the above said extent RPC |
Second appellant Rajbir RPC |
Raju is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case RPC |
Bail bonds of accused A1, A3 and A4 shall stand discharged RPC |
Appeal allowed RPC |
This appeal by special leave is directed against order dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court FAC |
Dismissing Letter Patents Appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge who dismissed his writ petition and confirmed the orders passed by the State Minister for Revenue in the proceeding R.T.S.3402/ Pra.kra.309/L-6 dated 18th October,2002 FAC |
It is the appellant's case that his father Shri Nawoosingh Panjumal Panjwani was a displaced person who migrated from Pakistan to India during the period of partition and the appellant's family while in Pakistan was having agricultural land over there admeasuring 4 acres 10 gunthas ARG |
After migration,the family took shelter at Refugee Camp of Pimpri,Pune in Maharashtra ARG |
In view of enactment of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954 by the Union of India,the immovable properties left behind by Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan were acquired and the same was distributed to displaced persons as a "compensation pool".Accordingly,father of the appellant was allotte... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.