Partly allowed

Parmod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2012CRA-S/286/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal partly, holding that medical evidence did not prove an intention to cause death under Section 307 IPC. The conviction was downgraded to Section 326 IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone if a compensation of Rs. One Lac was paid.

What did the court decide?

Conviction changed from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC; sentence reduced to time already undergone contingent on payment of Rs. One Lac compensation.

Parmod Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001 Date of decision: 24.8.2012

¶5

Parmod Kumar @ Sona v

¶6

Appellant

¶7

State of Punjab Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶9

Present: Mr. DS Pheruman, Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab

¶10

JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J.

¶11

The present appeal has been filed by appellant Parmod Kumar @ Sona, against the judgment/order dated 27.2.2001, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicted accused Parmod Kumar @ Sona under section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas, co-accused Harchand Singh @ Bau was convicted under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 450 IPC, both the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a

¶12

¶13

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶14

fine of Rs. 5000/- or, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶15

The brief facts of the case stand reflected in para 2 of the judgment of the Learned trial Court, are re-produced as under:-

¶16

“ This case was registered on the statement Ex.PJ of Harwinder Singh through first information report Ex.PJ/2. It was reported by the complainant that he is resident of village Hoshiarpur Nagar. He was running a clinic in his shop and he opened a school. On 27.6.1997, the complainant, his wife and his minor daughter were present in the court yard of their house. He was lying on the cot. The wife of the complainant was closing the door. At about 10.30/11 p.m, the electricity was on in the court yard. The accused who belong to the village of the complainant entered into the house of the complainant. Sona accused was armed with a Chhura (stab). One more person was standing at a distance which was not identified by the complainant. Sona accused gave a chhura blow in the abdomen of the complainant. He raised cry. The wife of the complainant came there. The accused ran away from the spot. The injured was removed to the hospital. The motive to cause injuries was that Harchand Singh alias Bau accused earlier committed theft of the ear-ring of the wife of the complainant. The panchayat was called and the ear ring was got returned by the panchayat. Bhupinder Singh ASI conducted the investigation. On 1.7.1997 he obtained the

¶17

¶18

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶19

opinion of the Doctor Ex. PE/1 who declared Harvinder Singh as fit to make his statement. Prior to that, injured was declared unfit to make statement vide applications Ex. PF, Ex.PL and Ex.PM Vide reports Ex. PF/1 Ex.PD/1 and Ex.PM/1. Statement Ex.PJ was read over to Harvinder Singh who thumb marked the same after admitting it correct and it was sent to the police station by making endorsement Ex.PU/1 on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PJ/2 was recorded. He inspected the place of recovery and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PN. He took into possession one shirt Ex. PI and Pajama Ex.P2 which were stained with blood vide recovery memo Ex.PK attested by the PWs. On receipt of report Ex.PB, offence under section 307 IPC was added. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He obtained the opinion of the doctor Ex.PO/1.”

¶20

To substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga, who examined the injured on 1.7.1997 and gave his opinion on application Ex. PC/1.

¶21

PW2, Dr. Jayant Chawla, Junior Resident, Chawla Hospital, examined the injured on 28.6.1997 (day of occurrence) and conducted the operation. Ex.PB is the operation notes. Ex.PD is the bed head ticket of the patient.

¶22

PW3, Dr. Dr. Ajay Mahajan, Junior Resident, Guru Nank Dev Hospital, endorsed the application dated 1.7.1997, Ex.PE of ASI Bhupinder Singh that patient was fit to make statement.

¶23

¶24

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶25

PW4, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Junior Resident, Guru Nank Dev Hospital, made endorsements Ex. PF/1, PG/1 and PH/1 on 28.6.1997 that patient was unfit to make statement.

¶26

PW5, Rakesh Kumar, MHC, who received parcel duly sealed with seal DS from ASI Bhupinder Singh. The parcel was handed over to Constable Kuldip Singh for sending the same to Forensic Science Laboratory.

¶27

PW6 is Harvinder Singh, injured while PW7, Paramjit Kaur, is wife of the injured.

¶28

PW8, ASI Bhupinder Singh is the Investigating officer of the

¶29

case.

¶30

PW9, Rishi Ram, draftsman proved the site plan Ex.P9/A of the place of occurrence.

¶31

The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which they denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.

¶32

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Learned trial Court held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced accused Parmod Kumar @ Sona and Harchand Singh for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment.

¶33

Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.2.2001, appellant-Parmod Kumar @ Sona, filed this appeal, which was admitted on 13.3.2001. The sentence of imprisonment was suspended on 9.11.2001 by this Court.

¶34

¶35

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶36

No appeal was filed by co-accused Harchand Singh @ Bau, as he had already undergone the entire period of sentence.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out against the appellant, as the injury was not dangerous to life and the appellant had no intention to kill the complainant. He further submitted that PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga had medically examined the complainant-injured on 1.7.1997 ( after three days of the occurrence) and gave his opinion on application Ex.PC/1. The patient had already been operated upon by PW2, Dr. Jayant Chawla on 28.6.1997. Injury No. 2 was declared dangerous to life, but it was not stated by PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga that this injury could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He made a prayer that the sentence awarded by the Ld. Trial court be reduced to the period already undergone by treating the offence under section 326 IPC.

¶38

The Ld. State counsel submits that out of 5 years, the appellant has already undergone 10 months, 10 days of sentence. He has placed on record the custody certificate received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar.

¶39

From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 1.7.1997. The incident took place on 28.6.1997. The complainant-injured was taken to Guru Nank Dev Hospital, Medical College, Amritsar on 28.6.1997. PW2 Dr. Jayant Chawla, examined the patient and operation was done with the help of Dr. Shivaji Rai, Dr. Kulwant Singh and Dr. Ajay Mahajan. Ex.PD is the bed head ticket of the patient and operation notes were written on it. As per statement of PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga, he examined Harvinder Singh-injured on

¶40

¶41

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶42

1.7.1997, and recorded the following injuries, nature and kind of weapon

¶43

used:-

¶44

“The patient was conscious, pulse 94 per minute. B.P 110/60mm of HG mercury. Patient put on ryle's tube and catheterized.

¶45

17 cms long a stitched wound with 19 stitches intact, present in the mid-line starting from 7 cms above the umblicus, going downward. Vertically placed.

¶46

2.5 cms long stitched wound with 1 stitch intact margins of wound are red and swollen. The wound is obliquely placed on front and right side of abdomen, 16 cms above the interior superior iliac spine.

¶47

Surgical drain present in the right iliac fossa, obliquely placed, 11 cms above the interior superior iliac spine. The wound is present on the front and right side of the abdomen.

¶48

Nature of Injuries:-

¶49

Subject to Surgeon's progress report and opinion.

¶50

Probable duration of injuries:- Subject to Surgeon's

¶51

opinion.

¶52

Kind of weapon used:

¶53

Subject to Surgeon's opinion.

¶54

After receiving the Surgeon's progress report No. Surgeon 6/97/56 dated 8.7.1997 and after consulting the

¶55

¶56

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶57

bed-head ticket, I declared injury No. 2 as dangerous to life. Injuries No. 1 and 3 are surgical wounds.

¶58

Kind of weapon for injury No.2, sharp pointed weapon Duration of injuries, when the M.L.R was conducted i.e. Dated 1.7.1997 within about one week ''

¶59

From the perusal of the above, it reveals that the doctor declared injury No. 2 dangerous to life, while injuries No. 1 & 3 were surgical wounds. It was not stated by the doctor that injury No. 2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and had simply deposed that injury No. 2 was dangerous to life.

¶60

The fact that the incident took place on 28.6.1997 and the injured was medico legally examined on 1.7.1997, deserves mention as PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga declared injury No.2 as dangerous to life. He declared it as such after consulting the bed-head ticket. He admitted in his examination that bed head ticket was not on the file. These injuries were more than seven days old. He further admitted that he had not seen operational notes at the time of giving this opinion. Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga was never associated with the operation or treatment of the injured. The depths of the wounds at the time of medical examination of the injured were not seen by him. So this witness was not aware of the depth of the wounds. On the other hand, PW2 Dr. Jayant Chawla, who had the custody of the bed head ticket, stated that he did not remember whether Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga ever obtained the bed head ticket from him or not. He further admitted that there is no mention on the bed head ticket regarding delivery of the same to Dr. Bagga on 1.7.1997. Though an application dated

¶61

¶62

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶63

8.7.1997 was moved by Dr. Bagga to obtain bed head ticket. Thus there is no record on the file to show as to on what basis Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga formed his opinion regarding nature of injuries and opined the same to be dangerous to life. In Atma Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1982 (2) Chandigarh Law Reporter, 496, it was held as under:-

¶64

“The court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert's opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life the court to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned. We are also firmly of the view that what wherever a doctor describes an injury as ' dangerous to life' and the nature of the injuries are such which could merit such conclusion then such an injury has to be treated as 'grievous hurt' of the description mentioned in first portion of clause 8 of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code.”

¶65

Therefore, from the medical record, the Court has to form its own opinion by analyzing nature, dimension, location of the injury caused. PW2, Dr. Jayant Chawla who operated the injured did not opine about the depth of the injuries. PW1, Dr. Inderjit Singh Bagga has also not

¶66

¶67

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶68

probed the depth of the injuries while conducting MLR after four days of the operation as it was a stitched wound. PW1, Dr. Jayant Chawla did not opine that the injury was dangerous to life and the injured would have died, had the operation not been performed upon him. None of the doctors had opined that the injury would have proved fatal if timely medical aid had not been rendered. The appellant gave only one injury. Thus, in the above facts, in the absence of any specific medical opinion, it cannot be said that the appellant had committed any offence under section 307 IPC. He is guilty of causing grievous hurt punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Ordered accordingly.

¶69

Now this Court will deal with quantum of sentence.

¶70

The appellant has suffered a protracted trial for more than 15 years. He has already undergone the sentence of 10 months and 10 days . He gave only one injury and did not repeat the blow. His intention was to cause grievous hurt and not to cause death. The appellant is not involved in any other FIR. He was a young man of 23 years at the time of occurrence. Appellant is the only bread earner of the family. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is awarded a sentence of imprisonment of the period already undergone by him for the offence under section 326 and 452 IPC. However, he shall have to pay a sum of Rs. One lac as compensation to injured Harvinder Singh.

¶71

In view of the above, it is ordered that the appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the conviction and sentence referred to above. The sentence of appellant-Parmod Kumar @ Sona is reduced to the period already undergone subject to payment of Rs. one lac to complainant-injured Harvinder Singh, as compensation. The compensation

¶72

¶73

Crl. Appeal No. 286-SB of 2001

¶74

shall be deposited within four months from today, failing which this appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed and the appellant has to undergo the remaining part of sentence imposed besides payment of fine as ordered by the trial court. .

¶75

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar shall ensure that this judgment is complied under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

¶76

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶77

24.8.2012 MS

¶78

Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.

Parmod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Vinod Sehgal Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Sehgal Vs State of Punjab

Usha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Raghav Vs State of Haryana

Prem Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.