Gursewak Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 20137 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gursewak Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 November, 2024

Author: Lisa Gill

Bench: Lisa Gill

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH


                                CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M)
                                Date of Decision: November 13, 2024

Gursewak Singh                                                  ... Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Punjab and Others                                      ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:-   Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
            for the appellant

            Mr. H.S. Deol, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

            Mrs. Arti Kaur, Advocate for
            respondent Nos.2 & 3.

                                   ****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Applicant- complainant is aggrieved of judgment dated

14.12.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh

Nagar, whereby the two accused (respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein) have

been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC, though convicted

under Section 323, 325 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant is

further aggrieved by separate order of even date, whereby respondent

Nos.2 & 3 were given the benefit of probation under Sections 3 & 4 of

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'The Probation

Act').

                                     1 of 6

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB




CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M)                                  2024:PHHC:148485-DB

2. As per prosecution case, on 04.10.2017 at about 09:15 A.M.

as the complainant - Gursewak Singh (appellant herein) was cultivating

his land, accused Asha armed with an iron rod and accused Manpreet

Singh armed with an iron pipe trespassed into his land and exhorted to

teach him a lesson for cultivating their land with the help of tractor. It was

alleged that Asha Rani gave iron rod blow on his head, which he warded

off by raising his left arm. The blow fell on his left wrist, resulting in its

fracture. As he tried to flee, accused Manpreet Singh inflicted iron pipe

blow on his left ankle, fracturing the same. Asha gave another iron rod

blow on his left shoulder and back. The alarm raised by complainant

attracted Mandeep Singh son of Gurmeet Singh and Balihar Singh son of

Santokh Singh, working in the nearby fields and as they reached the spot,

complainant entered the house of Mandeep Singh and saved himself;

whereas the assailants fled away along with their weapons. The injured -

complainant was shifted to hospital by his niece - Amandeep Kaur and

nephew - Davinderjit Singh. Intimation was sent to the police, which

arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of complainant -

Gursewak Singh, resulting in registration of FIR, initially under Sections

323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, supplementary

statement was made by the complainant on 15.10.2017, at which Section

307 IPC was added. After concluding trial, conviction of accused -

respondent Nos.2 & 3 was recorded under Sections 323, 325, 506 read

with Section 34 IPC but they were acquitted of the charge under Section

307 IPC. The two respondents - accused were given the benefit of

probation. It is informed that said respondents-accused have accepted the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB

CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:148485-DB

impugned judgment and order and have not filed any appeal.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there

was sufficient evidence on record to prove that injuries were inflicted by

the accused with such an intention that if they by their acts caused his

death, they would have been guilty of murder and so, acquittal of the

respondents under Section 307 IPC is not justified. It is further the

contention of learned counsel that respondents have been wrongly given

the benefit of probation, having regard to the nature of injuries caused on

the person of the complainant - appellant.

4. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 however seeks

dismissal of the application seeking leave to appeal.

5. We have considered submissions of both the sides and have

appraised the record.

6. While recording acquittal of respondents under Section 307

IPC, it has been taken into consideration by learned trial Court that as per

medico-legal report (Ex.PW4/B), proved by PW-4 Dr. Naranjan Ram,

following three injuries were found on the person of injured - Gursewak

Singh.

1. Complaint of pain over left lower and middle third of forearm due to hit by the rod with severe tenderness.

2. Multiple reddish abrasions and diffuse swelling of lower third of left lower leg, bluish discoloration of skin on lateral surface of left lower third of lower leg.

3. Reddish abrasion on the back of lower third of the left chest wall.

All the three injuries were subjected to radiological

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB

CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:148485-DB

examination and as per the X-ray report (Ex.PW-5/A), injury Nos.1 & 2

were found to be grievous; whereas injury No.3 was found to be simple in

nature.

7. Learned trial Court also found PWs Mandeep Singh son of

Gurmeet Singh, and Balihar Singh son of Santokh Singh to be unreliable

as their presence at the spot was found to be doubtful. Learned trial Court

further noticed that medical evidence did not support the prosecution case

to the effect that none of the injuries found on the person of appellant -

injured would be dangerous to life. It was specifically noticed that offence

under Section 307 IPC was added after 10 days of the incident simply on

the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant.

8. It is no doubt true that causing of actual injury, which is

dangerous to life, is not necessary to attract Section 307 IPC, as it is the

intention of accused, which is relevant, as to whether he inflicted the

injury with such an intention that had it resulted into death, accused

would have been guilty of murder. In order to discern such an intention,

some of the factors to be taken into consideration are the kind of weapon

used, body part on which injury is inflicted, repetition of injuries etc.

9. In the present case, injuries are alleged to have been caused

by iron rod and iron pipe, i.e. blunt weapons. No sharp edged weapon was

used. None of the injuries were caused on any vital part of the body of

injured-appellant - Gursewak Singh. Only one injury is attributed to

Manpreet Singh and two to Asha, which as noticed earlier, are not on any

vital part of the body of the injured.

10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned trial Court

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB

CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:148485-DB

did not commit any error in recording acquittal of the accused under

Section 307 IPC. Said finding is hereby sustained.

11. Coming to second submission made by learned counsel for

the appellant, it is fairly conceded by him that Section 4 of the Probation

Act does not bar grant of probation for an offence, which is not

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The conviction of the

respondents has been recorded under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with

Section 34 IPC and maximum punishment provided under Section 325

IPC is 07 years imprisonment.

12. Section 4 of the Probation Act reads as under:-

"4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."

13. Thus, apart from the fact that concerned person should not

have been found to be guilty of committing an offence punishable with

death or imprisonment for life, the other conditions to release such a

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148485-DB

CRM-A-83-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:148485-DB

person on probation are circumstances of the case including the nature of

offence and character of the offender.

14. In the present case, as noticed earlier injuries found on the

person of appellant-injured are on non-vital part of the body, having been

caused by blunt weapons. The two respondents are first offenders. No

such circumstance has been pointed out by learned counsel for the

appellant, so as to deprive the respondents from granting the benefit of

probation. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned

order passed by the trial Court granting the benefit of probation to the

respondents.

15. No other argument has been raised.

16. Consequently, finding no merit in the present application for

grant of leave to appeal, same is hereby dismissed.

 (DEEPAK GUPTA)                                            (LISA GILL)
     JUDGE                                                    JUDGE



November 13, 2024
sarita/sanjay khan

                      Whether reasoned/speaking :      Yes/No
                      Whether reportable        :      Yes/No







                                        6 of 6