RAMESH KUMAR @BABLA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 22-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 867 
RAMESH KUMAR @BABLA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No.33 5 of2016) 
APRIL 22, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 307, 324 or 326 - Clash between two 
groups resulting in injuries on both parties -Allegation against the 
A 
B 
, appellant that he gave a sword blow on the head of one person and . C 
also hit the complainant on his head - Other co-accused caused 
several injuries to the complainant - Trial court acquitted the 
remaining six accused persons but convicted only the appellant lll 
s.307 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years- High 
Court affirmed the same - On appeal, held: As per initial version of 
the occurrence, a sword blow near the eye of the complainant was 
allegedly caused by another co-accused whereas appellant is. 
alleged to have given a sword.blow on the head - It is not clear 
from the evidence as to·which of the two incised injuries was caused 
by the appellant - Injury no. 1 and 2 both are on the head and by 
sharp weapon - Only one of them, injury no. 1 is opined to be 
grievous but it is accepted by the doctor that it may be possible by 
fall, as doctor did not find any depth in the said injury - In such a 
situation, the appellant is entitled to be treated as the author of 
only the injury no.2 on the head which is said to be a simple injury 
but caused by a sword which is a qangerous weapon - In view of 
that, conviction uls.307 is converted to one u!s.324. 
Sentence/Sentencing: Appellant's conviction uls.307 !PC 
converted to one llls.324 !PC - Occurrence took place in 1997 -At 
the time of incident, appellant was aged 3,(5 years - Parties were 
involved in civil as well as criminal litigationfr9111 before-Appellant, 
D 
E 
F 
as per custody certificate was not involved in any other case -
G 
Appellant is 50 years of age and fully settled in life - To meet the 
ends of justice, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act granted to 
the appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - s.324. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
867 
868 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD: 1. In his evidence, PW-2, the doctor has declared 
injnry no.1 and injnry no.7 caused by a blunt weapon to be 
grievous by describing them as dangerous to life. But in cross-
examination, he has opined that possibility of injury no.1 by fall 
cannot be ruled out. Injury no.1 and 2 both are on the head and 
by sharp weapon. Only one of them, injury no.1 is opined to be 
grievous but it is accepted by the doctor that it may be possible 
by fall, obviously because doctor has not found any depth in the 
said injury. In such a situation, the appellant is entitled to be 
tn·ated as the author of only injury no.2 on the head which is said 
tu lie a simple injury but caused by a sword which is a dangerous 
C weapon. In view of that, it will not be proper to hold the appellant 
guilty of causing grievous hurt to the complainant and hence for 
having voluntarily caused hurt by a dangerous weapon, he 
deserves to be convicted only for offence u/s.324 IPC which is 
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
and/or with fine. Since the other co-accused who allegedly caused 
some other injuries have been acquitted and the appellant did 
not cause any other injury to the complainant, no case is made 
out u/s.307 IPC, especially when the genesis as well as motive 
for the alleged occurrence remain obscure and under haze. (Paras 
5, 6] [870-D-H; 871-A] 
2. Appellant's conviction u/s.307 IPC is converted to one 
u/s.324 IPC. On the question of sentence, it is pertinent to note 
that the occurrence took place in 1997. In his statement u/s. 313 
of the Cr.P.C. the appellant gave his age in 2002 as 36 years. He 
claimed that he and others went to the place of occurrence on 
getting information that his brother was assaulted by complainant. 
He brought his brother to Police Station and lodged a report. As 
noticed by trial court, parties are involved in civil as well as 
criminal litigation from before. High Court has noted that 
appellant, as per custody certificate, is not involved in any other 
case. In such circumstances, it is not deemed necessary to send 
the appellant immediately to Jail custody after about 19 years of 
the occurrence when he is 50 years of age and fully settled in life. 
In view of that, the ends of justice would be met by granting 
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. [Paras 7 
and 8] (871

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.