Allowed

Budh Raj v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Oct 2014CRA-S/69/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC due to proof defects in the medical opinion used. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and substituted it with Section 324 IPC, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment to the time already spent by the appellant, while maintaining the fine and default clause.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside and converted to Section 324 IPC. Sentence reduced to time already spent in custody. Fine and default terms maintained.

Budh Raj Vs State of Haryana — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

��

¶2

�

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

��

��

Budh Raj ..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

Coram: �� !"��#�$� ��#�"#��

¶11

Present: Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P.Ratra, DAG,Haryana for the respondent(State.

¶12

¶13

��#�$� ��#�"#��%�!�&' ��(

¶14

This appeal is � directed against the judgment/order dated 1.10.2003 whereby the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak (for short,''trial Court'') has convicted and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with fine amounting to Rs. 5000/( and in case of default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,''IPC”).

¶15

State is contesting the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that he

¶17

does not dispute the correctness of findings of conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court and prays for leniency with

¶18

NIRMAL KANT 2014.11.04 11:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶19

��

¶20

�

¶21

regard to quantum of sentence only but perusal of the record reveals that Dr. Rajiv Srivastava, who according to the case of the prosecution medically examined the injured/complainant, has not been examined as a witness and the medico legal report, Exhibit PH, has been proved on record by one Dr. Amarjit Singh Rathee. Opinion, Exhibit PL/1, regarding nature of injury has been placed on record by PW9 HC Ram Karan. Dr. Rajiv Srivastava as aforestated has not come forward to prove this opinion. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid opinion Exhibit PL/1, could be proved either by Dr. Rajiv Srivastava its author or by some one acquainted with his handwriting or some one who might have seen this opinion being authored. It, however, could not be proved by HC Ram Karan who does not claim to be acquainted with hand writing of Dr. Rajiv Srivastava nor does he claim that Exhibit PL/1 was recorded in his presence. It is well settled proposition of law that merely by marking a document as ''Exhibit'' does not dispense with the requirement of its proof as per procedure known to law. Therefore, Exhibit PL/1 has been wrongly relied upon by the learned trial Court for convicting the appellant under Section 307, IPC.

¶22

Even otherwise, opinion, Exhibit PL/1, is a very vague and uncertain in so far it states that if “ �� On the basis of such an opinion, even if it happens to be admissible in evidence, conviction of the appellant under Section 307, IPC, could not be recorded.

¶23

NIRMAL KANT 2014.11.04 11:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶24

��

¶25

)

¶26

In this situation, coupled with the fact that as per medico legal report, Exhibit PH, injury on the person of the complainant is stated to be with a sharp edged weapon, it can be said to be an injury falling within the description of Section 324, IPC.

¶27

Consequently, conviction of the appellant under Section 307, IPC, is set aside and it is converted into Section 324, IPC.

¶28

I am also informed that the appellant has already spent one year and four months in custody, therefore, substantive sentence awarded to the appellant in view of conversion of his sentence, is reduced to the period already spent by him in custody. Sentence as regards fine and default clauses are, however, maintained.

¶29

The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

¶30

October 29,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk �� JUDGE

¶31

NIRMAL KANT 2014.11.04 11:28 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

Budh Raj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budh Raj v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Khan Vs State of Haryana

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Other

Jaspinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs Gurmit Singh &Ors.

Ramesh Chand Sharma & Rs Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab