Case: Jadgish  Vs. State Of Haryana

2. On appeal to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the High Court upheld the conviction under the aforementioned Sections but reduced the sentence of the second appellant Balbir from ten years to seven years. The High Court further directed the appellant Jagdish to pay Rs.1 lac and the other appellant Balbir to pay Rs.50,0003. They were charged for attempt to murder Sukhbir (who was examined as) on 9.8.1990 at about 11.15 AM in the village Sihol. The prosecution case is that there were somes between the accused and the members of the prosecution party on account of a land dispute. On 9.8.1990, PW_8 along with his brother Om Prakash) went to Palwal in order to get the ticket reservation done and also to purchase some household goods. At about 11.15 AM, when they crossed G.T. Road, all of a sudden, the second accused Balbir, armed with a lathi and the other accused Jagdish, armed with Gandasa accosted them. The second accused Balbir hit Sukhbir) on the knee with lathi as a result of which Sukhbir) fell down. Thereafter, the accused Jagdish attacked Sukhbir) with gandasa and inflicted injuries on the head and both the arms of Sukhbir. The gravity of injuries on the hands was such that Sukhbir suffered amputation of hands. After hue and cry being raised by Om Prakash, the accused fed away. He also lodged a report to the police station at 12.15 PM on the same day. Om Prakash and others took Sukhbir to the hospital. FIR was registered by ASI Bhagat Ram. Initially, the victim underwent treatment at city hospital, Palwal and, thereafter, he was shifted to Army Hospital, Delhi in the evening of the same day. Though the prosecution claimed that the weapons gandasa and lathi were recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused persons, it was disbelieved by the trial court. The victim was first examined at Palwal Hospital by6 (Dr. A.K. Malik) who found six incised wounds on the scalp and hands and two abrasions ofon both the knees. He gave the opinion that injuries 1 to 5 were cumulatively dangerous to life. Amongst the injuries,6 found the right hand with lower 1/3rd of the forearm in an amputated form. There was also an incised injury on the left wrist 3and the left hand was found attached with left forearm through skin flaps and ligament of ulnar side. Thus, the impact of the injuries inflicted with ad weapon were such that both the hands suffered amputation., the doctor in Army Hospital, found incised wound over left parieto occipital region of scalp.

Court's reasoning:
If at all they can be convicted for the individual acts, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the second appellant) is concerned6. It is highly doubtful whether the appellant No.2 shared his common intention with appellant No.1 and both of them wanted to kill8 (Sukhbir). The conviction and sentence of the second appellant (accused No.2) is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed in so far as the second appellant is concerned7. Coming to the case of the first appellant, we find that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court as there are no compelling grounds to discard the testimony of the injured eye witness who was brutally assaulted by1 with a dangerous weapon. We, therefore, affirm the conviction of appellant No.1. As regards the sentence, we would not have felt inclined to reduce the same but for the fact that the first appellant during the course of hearing has come forward to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1 lac awarded by the High Court and the learned counsel for the appellant has brought three Pay Orders of Punjab National Bank for a total sum of Rs.1 lac, we consider it just and proper to reduce the sentence to eight years rigorous imprisonment instead of ten years while confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC.