advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, July 11, 2014

Sec. 307 - reduced to Sec. 326 - further sec. 324 I.P.C. = Whether the culpability of the accused would fall under Section 324 or Sec. 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether the injuries suffered by the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous hurt’ as defined by the relevant provision of the Penal Code - Apex court dismissed the appeal = PRITAM CHAUHAN ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) ... RESPONDENT (S) =2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41710

  Sec. 307 - reduced to Sec. 326 - further sec. 324 I.P.C. = Whether the culpability of the accused would fall  under  Section  324 or Sec. 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether  the  injuries  suffered  by the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous  hurt’  as  defined  by  the
relevant provision of the Penal Code - Apex court dismissed the appeal = 

307 I.P.C =  In appeal, the High Court  of  Delhi  had  altered  the  conviction  of  the
appellant to one under Section 326 IPC with  consequential  modification  of
the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.   The  High
Court, further directed the appellant to  pay  a  sum  of  Rs.  50,000/-  as
compensation to the victim, Sunder Singh, under the  provisions  of  Section
357  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.    =

Whether the culpability of the accused would fall  under  Section  324
or 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether  the  injuries  suffered  by
the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous  hurt’  as  defined  by  the
relevant provision of the Penal Code.  The  evidence  of  PW-2,  Dr.  Naresh
Chander Gaur, the Orthopaedic Surgeon who examined the victim on the day  of
the incident indicates that the victim had suffered two wounds at  the  back
of his left forearm 9 x 5 cm. over the middle 1/3rd and 6  x  4  cm.  distal
1/3rd left forearm with deep extensive damage to most  of  muscles  and  the
back of left forearm.  Apart from the above, there was another wound 4  x  1
cm. on the palm of the  right  hand.   According  to  PW-2  the  victim  had
undergone surgery on 19.5.1999 in the course of which both  wounds  on  left
forearm were explored and all the muscles were found  to  be  damaged  which
were repaired.  Furthermore, according to PW-2  the  digital  nerve  of  the
right index finger was cut which was also repaired.  PW-2  has  specifically
stated that the above injuries are grievous in nature and were  caused by  a
sharp edged weapon (knife) which fact is borne out  from  the  testimony  of
the victim himself, examined as PW-3, duly corroborated by the  eyewitnesses
PW-4 Babli and PW-5 Umesh.  Over and above, there is the evidence  of  PW-1,
     
Dr. Sudha Kanojia, who had first examined the victim Sunder  Singh,  to
the effect that the  injuries  sustained  by  the  victim  were  not  simple
injuries.  In view of the above evidence on record it is difficult  to  hold
that the injuries sustained by the victim due to the  assault  committed  by
the accused does not fall under 8th clause of Section 320 IPC, which,  inter
alia, defines ‘grievous hurt’ as “any hurt which  endangers  life  or  which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in  severe  bodily
pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits”.   The  conviction  of  the
appellant  under  Section  326  IPC,  therefore,  will   not   require   any
correction. =
The  doctrine  of
proportionality has to be invoked in the context of the facts in  which  the
crime had been committed, the antecedents of the accused,  the  age  of  the
accused and such other relevant factors.  In the present  case,  considering
that the accused-appellant had gone to his  house  to  fetch  a  knife  and,
thereafter, had given repeated blows to the  victim  resulting  in  multiple
grievous injuries, we are of  the  view  that  the  sentence  of  two  years
rigorous imprisonment  is  just  and  adequate  and  will  not  require  any
modification.  The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant  that
the appellant is willing to pay higher compensation under  Section  357  IPC
also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the provisions of  Section  357  operate
independently of the specific penal provisions of the Code under  which  the
court is required to sentence an offender.

8.    In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in  this
appeal.  It is accordingly dismissed.  

2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41710


                   NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.       1272                        OF 2014
       (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 9353 OF 2013)


PRITAM CHAUHAN                           ...    APPELLANT (S)

                                   VERSUS

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)               ...  RESPONDENT (S)




                               J U D G M E N T


RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellant had been convicted under Section 307 IPC by the  learned
Additional Sessions  Judge,  New  Delhi  in  Sessions  Case  No.28/2000  and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years  alongwith  fine.
In appeal, the High Court  of  Delhi  had  altered  the  conviction  of  the
appellant to one under Section 326 IPC with  consequential  modification  of
the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.   The  High
Court, further directed the appellant to  pay  a  sum  of  Rs.  50,000/-  as
compensation to the victim, Sunder Singh, under the  provisions  of  Section
357  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.   Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid
conviction and the sentence imposed, the appellant  has  filed  the  present
appeal.

3.    We have  heard  Mr.  Mohd.  Hanif  Rashid,  learned  counsel  for  the
appellant and Mr. Mohan  Jain,  learned  Addl.  Solicitor  General  for  the
State.

4.    The culpability of the appellant for the criminal acts  attributed  to
him need not be gone into in the present appeal inasmuch  as  the  arguments
on behalf of the appellant had centred around the quantum of sentence to  be
imposed and, in fact, the notice issued by this Court on 06.12.2013  was  on
the limited point of sentence.
5.    Notwithstanding the limited notice issued  i.e.  on  the  question  of
sentence which would have required the Court to proceed on  the  basis  that
the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  Section  326  IPC  need  not  be
disturbed, we have considered the arguments made on behalf of the  appellant
on the question as to whether the facts of the case required  alteration  of
the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 324 IPC  as  the  issue
of a lesser sentence was sought to be canvassed on that basis also.

6.    Whether the culpability of the accused would fall  under  Section  324
or 326 of the IPC would depend on as to whether  the  injuries  suffered  by
the victim amount to ‘simple hurt’ or ‘grievous  hurt’  as  defined  by  the
relevant provision of the Penal Code.  The  evidence  of  PW-2,  Dr.  Naresh
Chander Gaur, the Orthopaedic Surgeon who examined the victim on the day  of
the incident indicates that the victim had suffered two wounds at  the  back
of his left forearm 9 x 5 cm. over the middle 1/3rd and 6  x  4  cm.  distal
1/3rd left forearm with deep extensive damage to most  of  muscles  and  the
back of left forearm.  Apart from the above, there was another wound 4  x  1
cm. on the palm of the  right  hand.   According  to  PW-2  the  victim  had
undergone surgery on 19.5.1999 in the course of which both  wounds  on  left
forearm were explored and all the muscles were found  to  be  damaged  which
were repaired.  Furthermore, according to PW-2  the  digital  nerve  of  the
right index finger was cut which was also repaired.  PW-2  has  specifically
stated that the above injuries are grievous in nature and were  caused by  a
sharp edged weapon (knife) which fact is borne out  from  the  testimony  of
the victim himself, examined as PW-3, duly corroborated by the  eyewitnesses
PW-4 Babli and PW-5 Umesh.  Over and above, there is the evidence  of  PW-1,
     Dr. Sudha Kanojia, who had first examined the victim Sunder  Singh,  to
the effect that the  injuries  sustained  by  the  victim  were  not  simple
injuries.  In view of the above evidence on record it is difficult  to  hold
that the injuries sustained by the victim due to the  assault  committed  by
the accused does not fall under 8th clause of Section 320 IPC, which,  inter
alia, defines ‘grievous hurt’ as “any hurt which  endangers  life  or  which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in  severe  bodily
pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits”.   The  conviction  of  the
appellant  under  Section  326  IPC,  therefore,  will   not   require   any
correction.

7.    The punishment contemplated under Section 326 IPC is imprisonment  for
life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may  extend
to ten years, along with fine.  In a recent pronouncement of this  Court  in
Gopal  Singh  vs.  State  of  Uttarakhand[1]  it  has  been  held  that  the
“principle of just punishment” is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of  a
criminal offence.  The wide discretion that  is  vested  in  the  Courts  in
matters of sentencing must be exercised on rational parameters in the  light
of  the  totality  of  the  facts  of  any  given  case.   The  doctrine  of
proportionality has to be invoked in the context of the facts in  which  the
crime had been committed, the antecedents of the accused,  the  age  of  the
accused and such other relevant factors.  In the present  case,  considering
that the accused-appellant had gone to his  house  to  fetch  a  knife  and,
thereafter, had given repeated blows to the  victim  resulting  in  multiple
grievous injuries, we are of  the  view  that  the  sentence  of  two  years
rigorous imprisonment  is  just  and  adequate  and  will  not  require  any
modification.  The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant  that
the appellant is willing to pay higher compensation under  Section  357  IPC
also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the provisions of  Section  357  operate
independently of the specific penal provisions of the Code under  which  the
court is required to sentence an offender.

8.    In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in  this
appeal.  It is accordingly dismissed.   The  accused  shall  serve  out  the
remaining part of the sentence imposed by the High  Court  and  affirmed  by
the present order.

                       ……..……………........………………………J.
                       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]




                                                ……..……………........………………………J.
                       [RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI,
JULY 1, 2014.
-----------------------
[1]    (2013) 7 SCC 545

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.