Rakesh vs The State Of Haryana

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1869 of 2017

RAKESH & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 4th

March, 2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal-S No.2089 of 2003 whereby the

High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under

Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and affirmed the

sentence of seven years imposed upon them. The High Court also

confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 25 of

the Arms Act and the sentence of imprisonment of two years

imposed upon each of the appellants.

(2) The case in a nutshell is as follows. Jai Kishan son of

complainant is alleged to have abducted Dolly, daughter of

Rajinder and sister of the accused. It is alleged that, since

then there has been enmity between the two families. Signature Not Verified

On the Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.10.26

date of occurrence i.e. 12th April, 2000 at about 05.30-5.45 15:15:11 IST Reason:

a.m., when complainant’s son Raj Kishan (PW-6) went to answer

nature’s call, Rakesh, the accused no.1 inflicted injuries on 2

the head of Raj Kishan with a “dang”. The second

accused/appellant, Dalbir, shot Raj Kishan on the neck. A case

was registered and the law was set in motion.

(3) Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court

convicted both the accused-appellants under Sections 307/34

I.P.C. and sentenced them to seven years’ rigorous

imprisonment. They were further convicted under Section 324

I.P.C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and

also convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to one

year rigorous imprisonment. The second appellant, Dalbir, was

further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and

sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the

High Court affirmed the conviction as well as the sentence of

imprisonment of both the accused-appellants.

(4) Even though many grounds were raised in the appeal, at the

time of the arguments Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior

counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, submitted that

Dr. G.P. Aggrawal (PW-12) had opined that injury no.2 could

have been caused by a blunt weapon. Therefore, conviction

under Section 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable. Learned senior

counsel prayed for modification of the conviction of the

appellants from 307 I.P.C. to Section 325 I.P.C. Learned

senior counsel further submitted that at the time of the

occurrence, which was of the year 2000 the accused-appellants

were only 26 and 24 years of age. He, therefore, prayed for

further reduction of sentence of imprisonment. 3

(5) Dr. G.P. Aggrawal (PW-12) examined the injured Raj Kishan

and noted the following injuries:

“(i) An incised wound of size 1-½ x ½” over right occipital parietal area of skull;

(ii) A small lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 1 cm over left sub-mandible area 2-½” from angel of left mandible 2 inches below the left jaw;

(iii) A lacerated wound on left arm lateral side 3” above the left elbow joint.”

(6) Dr. G.P. Aggrawal (PW-12) has opined that injury No.2 was

caused by fire arm. Dr. Aggrawal further deposed that injury

No.2 was dangerous to life and the patient could have died if

he had not been given proper treatment. The evidence of Dr.

G.P. Aggrawal (PW-12) has to be examined in the light of the

testimony of injured witness-Raj Kishan (PW-6). Even though use

of fire through pistol was strongly refuted by the appellants,

it is pointed out that the pistol was also recovered from the

second appellant.

(7) Having regard to the testimony of injured witness-Raj

Kishan (PW-6) and the nature of the injuries, in our view the

conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is justified and we do not

find any reason to modify their conviction under Section 325

I.P.C. Insofar as the sentence for the conviction under

Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, the appellants were sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Since the occurrence

was of the year 2000 and in the facts and circumstances of the

present case and also considering the age of the appellants at 4

the time of the occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment

imposed upon them is reduced to five years.

(8) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 10, 2018.