1

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.  On the

date of occurrence i.e. 12th April, 2000 at about 05.30-5.45

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.