STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NICHHATAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab against altering of conviction of the respondents to Section 324 IPC from the charge of Section 307 IPC.

(2.) THE respondents alongwith three others (since acquitted) were proceeded against, inter alia, under section 307 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that on 14.9.1998, at 5.30 P.M., Santokh Singh, PW-4 was going from his house to the cattle shed in the company of his brothers Gian Singh, PW-3 and Gurmukh Singh, PW-5 and near the shop of Kewal Krishan, accused Nichhattar Kumar armed with 'gandasi', Ram Lubhaya armed with iron rod, Santosh Kumar armed with iron rod alongwith the acquitted accused (empty-handed) came from opposite side. Ram Lubhaya raised 'lalkara' that Santokh Singh be caught hold of and finished as his father Mohan Singh always talks ill of them in the Gram Panchayat. Nichhatar Kumar inflicted 'gandasi' blow on the left side of the head of Santokh Singh. Ram Lubhaya inflicted iron rod blow on the chest of Santokh Singh. Santosh Kumar gave two iron rod blows on his shoulder and on the back. Gian Singh and Gurmukh Singh raised alarm and intervened. Ram Lubhaya inflicted iron rod blow on the left cheek of Gian Singh. Nichhatar Kumar gave gandasi blow from blunt side to Gian Singh. Hussan Lal, Mukhtiar Singh and Pappu caught hold of Gurmukh Singh and gave fist blow. Thereafter, accused ran away with their weapons. Injured were taken to the hospital and were medically examined. Case was registered on the statement of Gian Singh and after investigation, accused were challaned. Charges were framed against them but they pleaded not guilty.

(3.) THE trial Court gave benefit of doubt to Hussan Lal, Surinder Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh, inter alia, on the ground that they were not named in the FIR and no injury was attributed to them. Nichhatar Kumar, Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar were convicted. Nichhatar Kumar was convicted under section 324 IPC and Ram Lubhaya and Santosh Kumar under Section 324/34 IPC. They were released on probation. Hence this appeal.