Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9353 of 2013). Case: Pritam Chauhan Vs State. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9353 of 2013)
CounselFor Appellant: Irshad Hanif, Ruchir Batra, Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Rauf Ali Khan and N.A. Usmani, Advs. and For Respondents: Mohan Jain, ASG, Satya Siddiqui, S.A. Siddiqui, B.P. Nahar, D.K. Thakur and D.S. Mahra, Advs.
JudgesSudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
IssueIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 320, 307, 324, 326, 357; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 357
CitationAIR 2014 SC 2553, 2014 AllMR (Cri) 2721 (SC), 2014 (3) RCR 555 (Cri), 2014 (8) SCALE 230
Judgement DateJuly 01, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. The Appellant had been convicted Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 28/2000 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine. In appeal, the High Court of Delhi had altered the conviction of the Appellant to one Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code with consequential modification of the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The High Court, further directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the victim, Sunder Singh, under the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and the sentence imposed, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

  3. We have heard Mr. Mohd. Hanif Rashid, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the State.

  4. The culpability of the Appellant for the criminal acts attributed to him need not be gone into in the present appeal inasmuch as the arguments on behalf of the Appellant had centred around the quantum of sentence to be imposed and, in fact, the notice issued by this Court on 06.12.2013 was on the limited point of sentence.

  5. Notwithstanding the limited notice issued i.e. on the question of sentence which would have required the Court to proceed on the basis that the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code need not be disturbed, we have considered the arguments made on behalf of the Appellant on the question as to whether the facts of the case required alteration of the conviction of the Appellant to one Under Section 324 Indian Penal Code as the issue of a lesser sentence was sought to be canvassed on that basis also.

  6. Whether the culpability of the accused would fall Under Section 324 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code would depend on as to whether the injuries suffered by the victim amount to 'simple hurt' or 'grievous hurt' as defined by the relevant provision of the Penal Code. The evidence of PW-2, Dr. Naresh Chander Gaur, the Orthopaedic Surgeon who examined the victim on the day of the incident indicates that the victim had suffered two wounds at the back of his left forearm 9 x 5 cm. over the middle 1/3rd and 6 x 4 cm. distal 1/3rd left forearm with deep extensive damage to most of muscles and the back of left forearm. Apart from the above, there was another wound...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT