LexSURESH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 547 -'! SU RESH A II. ST ATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2007) FEBRUARY 27, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 and 307 rlw s. 34 - Assault c on three persons - Eye-witnesses to the incident including injured witnesses - As per medical evidence, injuries on the victims grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature - Conviction by trial court - Confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: In view of cogent D and credible evidence of the injured witnesses and nature of injuries on the victims, conviction justified. Seven accused, including the appellant-accused were prosecuted for having assaulted three persons. E There were four eye-witnesses including two injured , witnesses. Trial court convicted four accused and "' acquitted three. During pendency of appeal by the j convicted accused one of them died and his appeal abated. High Court confirmed the conviction, but reduced F the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court ..( HELD: 1.1 In view of cogent and credible evidence G of the injured witnesses there is no scope for interference in these appeals. Though false implication was pleaded, the same is without any foundation. Clearly, all persons 547 H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R. r· A who have suffered injuries would not shield the actual culprit and implicate an innocent person when false implication is pleaded. The foundation has to be laid on the same. In the instant case that has not been done. [Para 5] [554-A-B] B 1.2 As per the evidence of the doctor who conducted medico-legal examination of the victims, all the injures were caused by sharp edged weapons. Injuries No.1 to 4 of one victim were declared as grievous in nature and c the same could have been caused by sharp weapon. The injuries of the other two victims were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per the opinion given by the doctor, there were multiple fractures and surgical emphysema was present. So, the injuries were D dangerous to life. [Para 4] [552-F-H; 553-A] CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2007. E From the Judgment & Order dated 4.1.06 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal No. 493-SB/1994. • WITH ' F Crl.A.No. 404/2009 Sanjay Rathi, Kapil Kr. Dagar, Jamshed Bey, Parmanand Gaur and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. T.V. George for the Respondents. G ,._ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P (Crl.) No.2007 of 2008. H 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R. A started giving blows by their respective weapons to Ram Sarup, ·- Sehdav and Nakul. On seeing the occurrence, the other passengers got down and ran away to the fields. After causing serious injuries to these three persons, the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, B Dharambir, driver of the tempo with the help of Sanjay (PW- 11), took the injured to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, in a Haryana Roadways bus. Sanjay got down at Madina and .i= went to village Mokhra for giving information to the family members of the injured. Dharambir got the injured admitted in c the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. The Medical Officer attended the injured and informed the police. A message was sent to the Police Station Meham. ASI lshwar Singh came to Medical College and Hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. D PN) of Dharambir on the basis of which the FIR (Ex. PN/2) was registered. ,_ On 14.11.1991, Dr. S.P. Chugh, Casualty Medical Officer, M.C.H., Rohtak (PW-9) conducted the medico-legal examination of injured Ram Sarup, Nakul and Sehdev and E found the following injuries on their person:- The injuries pertaining to Ram Sarup, injured: 1. An incised wound 10x4x2 cm. deep over front of • F the neck just above the thyrod cartilage. The trachea was cut and exposed. Advised E.N.T. Surgeon's opinion. 2. An incised wound 16x2 cm X bone deep over right side of the scalp extending from right eyebrow to G the parietal region up to the mid line. Advised Surgeon's opinion. ,._ r 3. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side of the scalp extending from the left eyebrow over ~ H SURESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 551 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.