Dharma Pal and others vs State of Punjab

There are eight appellants in this appeal. They along with two others were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur u/s 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 u/s 325 and were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand were convicted u/s 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 u/s 307 and the sentence awarded thereunder. The conviction of Hukum Chand and Tej Bhan u/s 325, I.P.C. was set aside and altered to one u/s 323, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court, however, allowed the appeal of State against Baldev Raj and convicted him u/s 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this appeal by all the eight convicted accused.

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.

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 u/s 325, I.P.C. by the trial Court and was ultimately convicted u/s 323, I.P.C. and sentenced for one year which also has been served out. Baldev Raj was convicted by the High Court u/s 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.

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 u/s 307 is not made out. In the result, the conviction of Dharam Pal and Wazir Chand u/s 307 and sentence of five years' R.I. awarded thereunder are set aside. Instead both of them are convicted u/s 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.