Mam Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Mam Chand, Amit Singh @ Dayala, Hariya and Premo Devi accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the accused') were tried, convicted and sentenced by the trial Court at Jagadhri as under:- Offence Sentence R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each. R.I. for a period of 2½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The appeal, preferred against the aforesaid judgment dated

30.07.2002/01.08.2002, was also dismissed on 05.03.2005. On 23.02.1992 at about 12/01:00 p.m., the complainant Gulzara Ram (herein referred as 'the complainant') was removing the onion plants from his field. At that time, Mam Chand passed through his field. Then the Criminal Revision No.548 of 2005 2 complainant prevented him not to pass through his field in future as he had no cordial relation with him. At this, Mam Chand, though agreed not to pass through his field in future but he threatened to teach him a lesson in the evening. At about 6:00 p.m., after completing his work, when the complainant was going, on his cart alongwith the grass, accompanied by his sons Sham Lal and Mam Raj and wife Chawli, then his brother Kalu Ram was also seen coming on his bicycle. In the meantime, all the accused way- laid them. Mam Chand inflicted a saria (iron bar) blow on his head; Amrit inflicted a saria blow on his right shoulder and Haria inflicted a saria blow on his left head and right shoulder and middle finger of his left hand. Amrit inflicted a pipe blow on the head of Kalu Ram, who was coming on his bicycle; Haria inflicted a saria blow on the left thumb of Mam Raj due to which his thumb was cut and Premo Devi inflicted a lathi (stick) blow on his shoulders. Chawli Devi and Sham Lal tried to rescue Mam Raj and Kalu Ram, then Mam Chand inflicted saria blow on the right side cheek of Chawli Devi. In the meantime, Balbir Singh and Bichcha Ram also came there and saved them. The complainant further explained that they had also caused some injuries to the accused in their defence. On the aforesaid statement of complainant Gulzara Ram made on 25.02.1992, the case was registered and investigated. Both the parties were challaned. The accused were charged under Sections 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined nine witnesses in all. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded Criminal Revision No.548 of 2005 3 their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined as many as three witnesses. The trial resulted into conviction of the accused. The appeal, preferred by them was also dismissed with the modification in the sentence. It is duly established that from the side of the complainant party, five persons were injured. Dr.Varinder Nagpal (PW6) has stated that Sham Lal suffered two injuries and both were found to be simple and complainant Mam Raj suffered the following injuries:-

1. There was amputation of left thumb present with skin tag attached from distal phalynx. The wound was of clean cut margin and bleeding was present.

2. He was complaining of pain in right shoulder. Dr.Varinder Nagpal (PW6) has stated that weapon used for injury No.1 was sharp. He has further disclosed that Kalu Ram suffered two injuries whereas Gulzara Ram suffered three injuries and all the injuries were the result of blunt weapon. Occurrence has not been disputed as Premo Devi, Amit Singh and Mam Chand also suffered injuries from the accused side. Complainant was challaned for the said injuries. Arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are two fold; one is that grievous injury on the person of Mam Raj cannot be the result of Saria (iron bar) and the other injuries are simple in nature, therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC; secondly the complainant party was the aggressor. As regards the first contention, the same has no merit. It is established that injury on the left thumb of Mam Raj was caused by Haria with the iron bar. It is also established that the said injury is grievous in Criminal Revision No.548 of 2005 4 nature and is the result of sharp edge weapon. It is also established on the record that the said iron bar was having sharp edges. Dr.Varinder Nagpal (PW6) has stated that edges of the said iron bar are blunt at three corners on one side and having sharp edge on the other side. He further submits that injury No.1 on the person of Mam Raj could possibly be the result of said iron bar shown to him with its sharp edges if applied with force and that too on a hard surface. It has come out from the evidence that the entire iron bar was not blunt but its edges were sharp. There are other injuries on the person of the injured which were the result of sharp edged weapon. Dr.Varinder Nagpal (PW6) was shown the iron bar Ex.DW2/A and he has categorically stated that this amputation of thumb would be made with the said iron bar, as such, there is no reason to form a different view than what was formed by the trial Court. Ambiguity with regard to saria, being a blunt weapon, has been explained by Dr.Varinder Nagpal (PW6). Now coming to the other argument that the complainant party is the aggressor, it is established on the record that four persons of the complainant party were coming from the fields and fifth was coming from the village side per chance whereas the accused persons had come pre- planned, equipped with the arms and way-laid them and caused them injuries. The motive for causing them injuries is also duly established as during the day time when Mam Chand was passing through the field of Gulzara Ram then he was prevented from passing through their field. The parties were not on good terms since earlier as Gulzara Ram had stated that since they are not on good terms and had no relations, therefore, he could not pass through their field. As such, the motive for causing injuries by the accused to the complainant party stands duly established. In these Criminal Revision No.548 of 2005 5 circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have caused the injuries to the complainant party in self defence. No other argument has been advanced. Resultantly, this petition, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

15.12.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge