STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MANGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AROUND 9.00 a.m. on June 24, 1984, HC Hans Raj of Police Station City, Fazilka recorded within the precincts of Civil Hospital, Fazilka statement of Gian Singh injured which reads, "I am a resident of village Shatirwala and do labour. Last night at about 9.00 p.m. I returned home after finishing my work and having taken my bath. I came out of my house for purchasing some goods. I found Manga Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Mazhabi and Rulda Singh S/o Kssar Singh, Mazhabi, residents of village Shatarwala standing along the well of Kashmir Lal Mahajan who is our neighbour. Manga Singh was armed with a Gandasi and Kulda Singh empty handed was also standing there. Rulda Singh asked me who I was. I replied that I was Gian Singh. On hearing me, Rulda Singh raised a lalkara saying, "what are you waiting for, go ahead and give him a blow." At this, Managa Singh came in front of my house and gave me a Gandasa blow which hit me on the joint of my left shoulder. I raised an alarm of "Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta" (Killed, Killed) upon which my neighbour Gurnam Singh S/o Jawala Singh and Paira Singh S/o Mahha Singh who were also coming to that side to attend some work reached there and gave call. At this, Manga Singh and Rulda Singh ran away from the spot with the weapon. The cause of grudge is that my father had employed Billy at Rs. Rs. 1200/- for one year, for grazing cattle. He had stopped to do his duty. My elder brother Manga Singh had gone to the house of Manga Singh S/o Mohinder Singh to settled the accounts. After an hour from this, Managa Singh and Rulda Singh came to me and they caused me injuries due to the grudge for demanding money. I am a complainant. Action may be taken."

(2.) ON being charged with the commission of offences under Sections 326/34 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the accused named Manga Singh and Rulda Singh pleaded 'not guilty' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated January 11, 1988, learned trial Court convicted accused Manga Singh of the commission of the offences under Sections 324 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and his co-accused Rulda singh of the commission of the offences unders 324/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the convicted accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of mine months each and individually fined Rs. 100/- for their convictions under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. In default of payment of fine each one of the two convicted accessed was ordered to undergo individually rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. In respect of their convictions under Sections 506 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code each one of the two convicted accused was individually awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fined Rs. 100/- each. In default of payment of fine each one of the two convicted accused was individually ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. Substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the two accused on both the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment of acquittal under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 280-DBA of 1988 in this Court.

(3.) THE sole point for determination in this appeal is if the single injury inflicted by Manga Singh on the person of Gian Singh injured could be termed grievous or not. Dr. Inder Mohan Chalana PW3 states. "There was an incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm into bone deep on left shoulder joint starting from above and going on the back side obliquely towards scapular side. The underlaying bone was cut along the direction of the would in its middle measuring 7 cm x 15 cm. Movement of the left shoulder joint was painful and restricted. On examining the wound a bleeder was bleeding. The area surrounding the wound was tender. Patient was conscious. Pulse was 92 per minute. B.P. was 116/76." In terms of the observations made by this Court in Jassa Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 406 : 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter, the learned trial Court held the injury to be simple and therefore punished the accused under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code because the injury was caused with a Gandasa, an instrument for cutting from its sharp side. Relevant observations made by the learned trial Court read, "Lastly it has been contended by the defence counsel that in view of medical evidence the case does not fall within the mischief of Section 326 IPC. In this case no X-ray was done to prove the nature of injury on the person of the complainant. In M.L.R. it is mentioned that the underlying bone was cut along the direction of the wound. The injury seas declared previous without any X-ray examination. When PW3 Dr. Inder Mohan Chalana, appeared in the witness box he stated that no X-ray was conducted as the bone cut was visible with a naked eye. In these circumstances the contention of the defence counsel has sufficient force. It is quite possible that the bone under-neath the wound might be having only scratch or superficial cut. No. X-ray was done to probe the depth of the cut. The observations with a naked eye cannot be accepted when a surer opinion could be given after getting injury x-ray. In case Jassa Singh and other v. State of Punjab, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 406 : 1984 (1) CLR, the injuries were declared grievous on the basis of probing the same with finger only and no x-ray examination was done to ascertain the depth of bone cut. In these circumstances, it has been held that the doctor himself could not deny that the depth of cut could not be given in examination by a naked eye especially when surer opinion could be obtained after getting the injury X-ray. In these circumstances, it would not be safe to allow the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 IPC, to stay."