Amrit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of H.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 138 of 2001
In Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001
In Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001
Petitioner: Amrit Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of H.P.
Apeal: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 138 of 2001
In Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001
In Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2001
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 27, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
a) Section 307/34 with Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 29 – Sentence – Attempt to murder – One accused catching hold of victim and second giving spade blow on the head – Injury of serious nature on vital part of body – Trial court awarding imprisonment of 2 years and fine to both. Held that second accused, who gave the blow cannot be let away with such sentence. After hearing, his sentence enhanced to 5 years. (Paras 4, 5)
b) Sections 34, 307, 324 – One accused catching the victim – Other giving blow with spade on the head of victim – Role of first accused only limited to catching. Held that at the most he intended assault to be made. He would not have intended that injury of seri-ous nature be inflicted. Hence, conviction altered from Section 307 to Section 324/34 IPC. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
1. In this case, both the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each besides a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed their appeal. When the appellants filed the special leave petition, we noticed that the injuries sustained by the victim in this case were so serious as warranting heavier sentence to be awarded in case the conviction has to be upheld. On that premise, notice was issued to the appellants also to show cause why the sentence shall not be enhanced in case the conviction has to be upheld.
2. The facts of the case would show that the first appellant, Amrit Singh caught hold of the victim, Pyare Lal and it was then the second appellant, Hemant Singh inflicted a heavy blow on his head with a spade. The victim had suddenly fallen down uncon-scious. The fact finding court believed the testimony of the eye-witnesses against which no serious criticism could be raised by learned Counsel for the appellants.
3. It was first thought that the injury was not very serious as the court only looked at the wound certificate issued by PW-14, Dr. Deepak Kapoor. It was noted as only an incised wound on the parietal region of the head and swelling on the tempero parietal region surrounding the incised wound on that part of the head. In the X-ray examination it was noticed that
“the victim had compound, communicated, depressed fracture on the right tempero parietal region along with left facial palsy and left sided hemiparalisis.”
4. We do not think that the person who inflicted such an injury can be sent away with a sentence as imprisonment for two years. The victim was able to survive the said injury only on account of his luck. Such was the seriousness of that wound on the vital part of his body. He survived possibly because he was not des-tined to die. We are not able to persuade ourselves to the limit of the sentence imposed on him by the trial court as it calls for drastic enhancement in the interest of administration of justice.
5. We, therefore, enhance the sentence in respect of the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
6. The role attributed to the first appellant is only that he caught hold of the victim. It cannot be said that the first appellant would have intended that an injury of the nature inflicted by the second appellant should be caused. At the most, he would have intended that assault would be inflicted by the second appellant. Hence, it is not possible for us to maintain the conviction as for the first appellant for an offence punish-able under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, alter his conviction to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. As for the first appellant, commensurate reduction regarding the extent of sentence is also warranted in view of the alteration of his conviction. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year. If he has already undergone the said period, reckoning the other remissions etc. he is entitled to be set at liberty. If he has not completed the said period, he need be released only on completion of the sentence imposed by us in this judgment. We make it clear that the fine portion of the sentence will remain undisturbed.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
2. The facts of the case would show that the first appellant, Amrit Singh caught hold of the victim, Pyare Lal and it was then the second appellant, Hemant Singh inflicted a heavy blow on his head with a spade. The victim had suddenly fallen down uncon-scious. The fact finding court believed the testimony of the eye-witnesses against which no serious criticism could be raised by learned Counsel for the appellants.
3. It was first thought that the injury was not very serious as the court only looked at the wound certificate issued by PW-14, Dr. Deepak Kapoor. It was noted as only an incised wound on the parietal region of the head and swelling on the tempero parietal region surrounding the incised wound on that part of the head. In the X-ray examination it was noticed that
“the victim had compound, communicated, depressed fracture on the right tempero parietal region along with left facial palsy and left sided hemiparalisis.”
4. We do not think that the person who inflicted such an injury can be sent away with a sentence as imprisonment for two years. The victim was able to survive the said injury only on account of his luck. Such was the seriousness of that wound on the vital part of his body. He survived possibly because he was not des-tined to die. We are not able to persuade ourselves to the limit of the sentence imposed on him by the trial court as it calls for drastic enhancement in the interest of administration of justice.
5. We, therefore, enhance the sentence in respect of the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
6. The role attributed to the first appellant is only that he caught hold of the victim. It cannot be said that the first appellant would have intended that an injury of the nature inflicted by the second appellant should be caused. At the most, he would have intended that assault would be inflicted by the second appellant. Hence, it is not possible for us to maintain the conviction as for the first appellant for an offence punish-able under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, alter his conviction to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. As for the first appellant, commensurate reduction regarding the extent of sentence is also warranted in view of the alteration of his conviction. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year. If he has already undergone the said period, reckoning the other remissions etc. he is entitled to be set at liberty. If he has not completed the said period, he need be released only on completion of the sentence imposed by us in this judgment. We make it clear that the fine portion of the sentence will remain undisturbed.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
