GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS SAMRALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's election as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village rattanheri in the Panchayat Elections held on 24-6-1972 has been set aside by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 1, on an election petition (Annexure 'a') filed by the defeated candidate Shri Arjan Singh, respondent No. 2, on the ground that the petitioner had, during the period of five years preceding his election, been convicted of the offence of voluntarily causing simple and grievous injuries to respondent No. 2 under Sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code and that the offences involved petitioner's moral turpitude. The prescribed authority's order dated 22-8-1972 (Annexure 'c') removing the petitioner from office under Section 6 (5) (b) read with Section 13-O (1) (a) of the Punjab Gram Panchayats Act. 1952, has been called in question by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner admits that he had been convicted under Sections 324 and 326, indian Penal Code, and that he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the second count. The copy of the judgment of the trial Magistrate is Annexure 'r-1' to the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 while the petitioner had filed a copy of the judgment on appeal as Annexure 'd' to his writ petition. These judgments show that the petitioner was found to have planned the crime in a cool and calculated manner and to have lain in ambush for the complainant. He had armed himself with a deadly weapon namely a gandasa. When the complainant was returning from Ludhiana and was passing by the side of a graveyard at about 8 P. M. , the petitioner had opened an unprovoked attack on the complainant who had been taken by complete surprise. The complainant was unprotected and unarmed at that time. He had been mercilessly injured in a sustained attack with a deadly weapon which had been used on the complainant's head not only from the blunt side but also with the sharp edge. One of the blows had cut off the complainant's jaw and had resulted in a loss of eight teeth in a row on one side. More than half a dozen injuries had been caused to a helpless unarmed man all over his body and two or three injuries had been given with that heavy weapon on the head itself. The nature of the weapon and the location of the injuries may even suggest that this was almost a murderous assault on respondent No. 2. This premeditated crime was the work of an aberrated mind and no normal person can possibly approve of such conduct on the part of a person who is aspiring to be the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of his village. The attack was on an unarmed and unprotected person and no element of fair fight was involved. The crime does not appear to have any redeeming features.

(3.) THE simple question for decision in this case in whether such a deliberate or planned assault on another with a deadly weapon could be described to involve any moral turpitude. No direct rulings relating to cases of convictions for offences of voluntarily causing hurt have been cited before me.