Lakha Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Lakha Singh and Sukha Singh were tried before Shri L.R. Roojam Judicial Magistrate Class Dasuaya for offences under sections 326 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced as follows :

Name of the petitioner Provisions of the Indian Penal Code Senten

Lakha Singh Under Section 326 Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/ or in default thereof,$ further RI for 3 month

Under Section 323/34 RI for 4 month

Sukha Singh Under Section 326/34 RI for 9 months and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default thereof, further RI for 3 month

" Under Section 323 RI for 4 months.

Both the sentences of the petitioners were directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine, if and when recovered, a sum of Rs. 500/ was directed to be paid to Shangara Ram, injured.

The petitioners preferred separate appeals which were heard by Sh. R.I. Gaind, Addl. Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same on 4386. Against that judgment, they have come up in revision to this Court.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20184, at about 7.30 p.m., Shangara Ram who is a resident of village Kainthan, Police Station Dasuya was returning to his house after making purchases. On reaching near the shop of Surta Singh, he saw both the petitioners, his covillagers, hurling abuses to Tirth Singh. He asked the petitioners not to abuse Tirath Singh. At that time, both the petitioners were under the influence of liquor. They felt offended and started abusing Shangara Ram. Lakha Singh raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to Shangara Ram and gave a Datar blow on his head. On receipt of this injury, Shangara Ram fell down. Sukha Singh who was carrying a Gandasi, gave a blow with it from down. its wrong side on the Upper portion of his arm. Alram raised by the injured person attracted Amar Chand, Bahadur Chand and Mangal Dass, PWs to the spot who intervened. Thereupon both the petitioners, ran away. Shangara Ram'' went to the hospital where he was medically examined. Intimation to this effect was sent to the Police. He, being not fit to make a statement, the Police had to adjourn the recording of his statement till the next day. On 21184 at 11.30 a.m., his statement was recorded and a case was registered.

Dr. V.K. Kaushal who examined Shangara Ram affirmed having found the following two injuries on his person :

"There was an incised wound 9 cm x 11/2 cm, into bone deep going backward and upwards in the middle. The lower part of the wound was 9 cm. above the naison and the distril under the wound was 17 cm from both the pinnas upper borders. Wound was in frontal and parietal part of skull. Advised xray skull. A.P. and laterals views kept under observation. Fresh bleeding was present.

There was red colour contusions on the posterior lateral aspect of left humerus and it was going upwards and backwards, from lateral border of the humerus. It was 14 cm. x 7 cm. Lower end of the wound 3 cm. above the left olecration. The underline bone tender, advised xray of left humerus including left sholder and left elbow joint.

After xray of injury No. 1, it was declared to be grievous and No. 2 was declared as simple. The prosecution also relied upon statements of Bahadur Chand and Mangal Dass, besides that of Shangara Ram, as witnesses to the occurrence.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that there was delay in lodging of the First Information Report and that there were also chances of Shangara Ram having not identified his assailants. On both these aspects, I am unable to endorse his arguments. Soon after receiving the injuries, Shangara Ram had gone to the hospital where he was medically examined and also treated upon. Information had then been sent to the Police which came to the hospital at about 11.30 midnight, but Shangara Ram was unfit to make a statement. On the next morning, at 11.30 he was declared fit and then his statement was recorded. Both the petitioners belong to his village. He had seen them from close quarters. There was no chance of his confusing the identity of his assailants. He also had enough chance to confirm their identity, as in the first instance, he had found the petitioners hurling abuses to Tirath Singh. After he objected to the same, the petitioners abused him and thereafter, opened the assault. I, thus, reject the argument of the learned counsel on both these aspects of the case.

The petitioners had acquired sufficient motive for assaulting Shangara Ram since he had tried to restrain them from hurling abuses to Tirath Singh. In all probability the petitioners felt that Shangara Ram should mind his own business and had no justification in trying to stop them from hurling abuses to Tirath Singh. This motive, no doubt, had suddenly developed against Shangara Ram, injured.

The occurrence tookplace close to the house of Shangara Ram and the presence of Bahadur Chand, his uncle and Mangal Das his father is most probable. None of the eyewitnesses had any motive to substituie the real assailants. They have stood the test of crossexamination and their evidence has been duly sifted by the trial Court and the appellate Court.

Medical evidence gives further corroboration to the testimony of Shangara Ram, injured.

With respect to the application of section 34 of the IPC, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. None of the two petitioners had come to assault Shangara Ram. The matter flared up, simply because Shangara Ram intervened to restrain the petitioners from hurling abuses to Tirath Singh. It cannot be safely concluded that both of them had shared a common intention to cause grievous hurt to Shangara Ram. Lakha Singh petitoner had not only attacked Shangara Ram with a Datar, but had also exhorted his companion Sukha Singh to teach him a lesson. While he will be vicariously liable for the act of Sukha Singh, but in respect of Sukha Singh petitioner, it cannot be said that he shared any common intention with Sukha Singh to cause grievous hurt to Shangara Ram. Thus, while confirming the conviction and sentence of Lakha Singh, I acquit Sukha Singh of the charge under section 326 read with section 34, IPC but affirm his order of conviction under section 323, IPC, I also reduce his sentence to the one already undergone by him. With this modification in the conviction and sentence of Sukha Singh, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.