9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and order dated 19th September, 1986 convicted the respondents (A-1 to A-4) for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Amarjit Singh (A-1), Surjit Singh (A-3) and Pritam Singh (A-4) to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 100/-; in default to undergo RI for one month, as also under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer RI for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, as the second appellant Daljit Singh (A-2) was found to be below 16 years of age at the time of occurrence, he was dealt with under Section 34(1) of the East Punjab Children Act, 1949 and directed to be kept in Borstal J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awar Singh went to the accused and asked them to stop doing the illegal activities in his field whereupon Pritam Singh (A-4) gave two lathis blows on the head of Bakhtawar Singh followed by Daljit Singh (A-2) and Surjit Singh (A-3) who also assaulted him with lathis blows. Bakhtawar Singh sustained bleeding injuries and fell down on the ground. A-1 to A-3 even thereafter continued their assault. Mukhtiar Singh (PW 7) who went to rescue him was caught hold of by A-4 upon which A-1, A-2 and A-3 assaulted him with lathis. After hearing the alarm raised by Mukhtiar Singh (PW 7), Chhina Singh (PW 8) reached at the spot whereupon the accused fled away. The injured persons were then removed to a hospital at Sidhwan Bet by Chhina Singh on tractor-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... experts of whom Dr. Shamsher Singh (PW 5) held the autopsy on the dead body of Bakhtawar Singh. 5. As indicated above, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, convicted the respondents A-1 to A-4 for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, on appeal by A-1 to A-4, the High Court partly allowed the same and altered the conviction of A-1 to A-4 from Section 302/34 IPC to 325/34 IPC and sentenced A-1, A-3 and A- 4 to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for six months. Their conviction and sentence under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was, however, maintained. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese injuries were ante mortem. In the face of this evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court was totally wrong in altering the conviction of A-1 to A-4 from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC. It also needs to be mentioned that there was no challenge to the fact that Bakhtawar Singh died an homicidal death. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court has committed a serious error of law while altering the conviction of respondents A-1 to A-4 from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated January 20, 1988 to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
