CRR-1037-2008 1 202-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1037-2008 Date of decision : 17.07.2026 Khajan Chand and another ...Petitioners Vs. Bhoop Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr.R.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for Mr. L.S.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Narula, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3 in CRR-1037-2008. *** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. The present revision petition has been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05/14.11.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby trial Court held that the offence under Section 307 of IPC has not been made out and the respondents were convicted under Sections 325/323 of IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that on the intervening night of 08/09.11.2002 at about 02.00 AM, respondents, Nirmala Devi (wife of respondent No.1) and Suman Bala (daughter of respondent No.1) i.e. a total of five persons gave injuries to petitioners with their respective weapons over a land dispute. The said land is of Krishan Kumar, brother of respondent No.1 and was on lease against the wishes of respondents No.1 and 2. In the said occurrence, petitioners received grievous and multiple injuries including VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1037-2008 2 fracture on the head, which resulted into the registration of the FIR No.199 dated 10.11.2002 under Sections 308/325/323/506/34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa. 3. Accordingly, trial was proceeded and prosecution examined 11 witnesses and trial Court vide order dated 05/14.11.2007 convicted respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 of IPC whereas other accused, namely, Nirmala Devi and Suman Bala were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Thus, revision petition has been preferred against the conviction under Sections 325/323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the offence available on record, while the injuries attributed to the respondents were proved, but the learned trial Court committed error by convicting the respondents only under Sections 325/323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC and awarded the sentence of three years to the respondents which is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also apprised this Court that during the pendency of the present petition, respondent No.1, namely, Bhoop Singh has expired on 27.06.2023. 6. Heard. 7. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 05.11.2007 is reproduced below:- “xxxx Accused Bhoop Singh had given a gandasa blow on the head of injured Ramesh Chand. Accused Vishnu had also given a blow with iron rod on the head of Ramesh. Bhoop singh had further inflicted a gandasa blow on the head of complainant from tis reverse side. Vide Ex.PE/1 Dr. Sumita opined that injuries no.1 and 2 on the person of Ramesh Kumar could be dangerous to life. The question arises whether such an opinion brings the offence within the purview of Section 307 IPC. In order to bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, it must be shown that the accused acted with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he caused VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1037-2008 3 death he would be guilty of murder. Section 320 Eighthly o IPC defines grievous hurt as any hurt which endangers life. Thus the opinion Ex PE/1 given by Dr. Sumita brings the injury on the person of Ramesh Chand within the ambit of Section 320 Eighthly of IPC, attracting Section 325 IPC as the grievous injury was caused with blunt weapon. The copy of MLR Ex.PA of injured Ramesh Kumar shows that injuries no.1 and 2 were caused with blunt weapon. Meaning thereby, accused Bhoop Singh had caused those injuries by using gandasa, a sharp edged weapon, from its reverse side. Such conduct on the part of accused Bhoop Signh is very relevant to determine his intention to cause injury. If he intended to cause death of Ramesh Chand or Khajan Chand, he would have used gandasa from its sharp edged side. To attract section 307 IPC it has to be established that there was intention to commit murder coupled with some overact in execution thereof. Such an intention is completely lacking in the case in hand. At this juncture reference may be made to Single Bench authorities of our own Hon'ble Hgih Cuort cited as 'Tej Ram Versus State of Punjab, 1978 CLR 76 and Sudarshan Kumar Versus Staet of Haryana' 1983 RCR 379. In 'Tej Ram's authority, the injury caused by accused was found to have ruptured the lung of the victim. The doctor opined the injury as dangerous to life, but not as being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In such circumstances, it was held that only an offence under Section 326 IPC was made out as the opinion given by the doctor brought the injury within the mischief of Section 320 Eighthly of IPC. In Sudarshan Kumar's authority, the accused had caused compound fracture of skull with a sword. The doctor opined that the injury was grievous in nature and was dangerous to life. There was no evidence to show that the injury was sufficient to cause death. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court altered the conviction of the accused from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC. 15. No reverting to the case in hand, in view of the law laid down in the authorities cited above, it is clear that the injuries caused to Khajan Chand and Ramesh Kumar and the opinion Ex.PE/1 given by the doctor, bring this case within the mischief of Section 320 Eighthly IPC. Thus I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused had committed offence under Section 307 IPC. But from the above discussed evidence the prosecution has been successful to establish charges under Sections 325, 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against Bhoop Singh, Vishnu and Rakesh and hence I hold them guilty under Sections 325 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and convict them thereunder. As held above, accused namely Nirmala Devi and Suman Bala are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Quantum of sentence shall be decided after hearing both sides.” 8. The relevant extract of order of quantum of sentence is also reproduced here:- “I have heard Sh. Kheta Ram, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Sh.J.S.Maan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant, and Sh. Ranjit Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the convicts on the point of quantum of sentence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby sentence the convicts as follow:- 1. Under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC (i) Convict Bhoop Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs 3000/-, in default of which he shall further undergo simple VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1037-2008 4 imprisonment for a period of one year, Under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC (ii) Convicts Vishnu and Rakesh are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-each, in default of which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Under Section 323 Read with Section 34 IPC i) Convict Bhoop Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of which he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. (ii) Convicts Vishnu and Rakesh are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default of which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.” 9. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that respondent No.1, namely, Bhoop Singh gave gandasa blow on the head of injured/petitioner No.2-Ramesh Chand, respondent No.2 and 3 gave iron rod blow on the head of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 inflicted gandasa blow from its reverse side to petitioner No.1-Khajan Chand son of Mehtab Singh. Learned trial Court has observed that to attract Section 307 IPC, it has to be established that there was intention to commit murder and the same intention is completely lacking in the present case. It was further observed that the doctor opined the injury as dangerous to life but not being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It has been further observed that taking into account the injuries caused to both the petitioners and the opinion given by the doctor (Ex.PE/1), the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had committed offence under Section 307 IPC. The trial Court by relying upon the evidence, held respondent No.1 guilty of offence under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo RI for a period of three years and to VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CRR-1037-2008 5 pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for a period of one year. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also held guilty of the offences under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 IPC and were awarded sentence under Section 325 IPC to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for a period of six months and under Section 323 IPC to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for a period of three months. 10. Through this petition, petitioners have prayed for modification of the judgment as well as for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents upto three years, but learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to justify the same and no cogent reasoning has been given as to why and on what basis the same should be enhanced and modified. 11. Moreover, the material available on record reveals that after relying upon the evidence, trial Cout adequately sentenced the respondents. 12. Given the above discussion, there is no error in the judgment passed by learned trial Cout and same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 14. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such. (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 17.07.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No VANITA 2026.07.20 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment