HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Hari Ram has been convicted for having committed offences u/Ss. 341, 323, 326, IPC and sentenced to Rs. 300/- fine, in default 7 days simple imprisonment, three months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine, in default 15 days simple imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine in default three months simple imprisonment respectively vide judgment dated 31-3-99 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar in Crl. Case No. 398/97. It may be mentioned here that co-accused Arjun Ram and Hanuman Ram were convicted u/Ss. 341 and 323, IPC and sentence were passed against them also. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1 Sri Ganganagar by judgment dated 4-8-99 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as stated above. The conviction of Arjun Ram and Hanuman Ram were affirmed but they were released u/S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. They have not come up in revision. Now, this revision petition has been preferred by Hari Ram challenging the above referred conviction of the sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case, as stated in the statement of complainant Subhash recorded in Govt. Hospital, Sriganganagar on 25-8-97 at 4.00 p.m. is that there was long standing dispute between him and the neighbours Arjun Ram, Hari Ram and Hanuman Ram. Therefore they kept inimical terms with him. The incident took place on 24-8-97 at about 8.00 p.m., when he was returning to his house after giving water to his cows. When he approached in front of the house of one Prithvi at a distance of 450 steps from his house, all three persons Arjun Ram, Hari Ram and Hanuman Ram met him on the way. Hari Ram was wielding gandasi and Arjun Ram, Hanuman Ram were holding lathis. Hari Ram gave a gandasi blow on his left shoulder near the neck. His hue and cry attracted his father and brother's attendance at the place of occurrence. Hanuman Ram and Arujn Ram gave lathi blows to his brother Krishan. Prithvi and Jetha Ram came to their rescue. on this 'parcha bayan' offences were registered under Ss. 341, 323 and 326 read with 34, IPC and after usual investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Hari Ram, Arjun Ram and Hanuman Ram and the trial took place.

(3.) The prosecution examined injured complainant Subhash PW. 1, injured Krishan Lal brother of Subhash PW. 2, Daya Ram PW. 3 and Dr. Shashi Kumar Sharma PW. 4 who proved the injury report of Krishan Lal Ex. P3, Dr. B. M. Sharma who proved the injuries on the person of Subhash giving the opinion that the injury on the shoulder near the neck was of grievous nature as it sustained cut of C5 and C6, Dr. Purshottam Vyas PW. 8 Senior Specialist, Orthopaedics department, Govt. Hospital, Sriganganagar who opined that the injury on the shoulder involved Brochial Plexus of celvical root of 5 and 6. It was a very serious injury. He proved his opinion Ex. P10. He opined that such injury is likely to cause permanent physical deficiency and incapacity. The other two witnesses are Mool Chand, Motbir to the documents prepared during investigation and Prithvi PW. 7, an eye-witness who did not support the prosecution and therefore he was declared hostile and cross-examined by confronting his statements Ex. P9 recorded u/S. 161, Cr. P.C. The appellant and other co-accused persons denied the allegations in the statement u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. saying that they have been falsely implicated. However, no specific defence was taken by them. But Hari Ram petitioner got himself examined as defence witness. The learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have given concurrent finding after discussing the prosecution evidence that offence u/Ss. 341, 323, 326 stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner.