Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sahib Singh, was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt to the deceased Harbans Singh during an incident on 26 January 2002. The Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2002 convicted him, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2005 upheld the conviction, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone (over five years) and imposing a compensation of Rs. 20,000. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR). The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant Jagir Singh (PW-3) and another injured eyewitness Bachan Singh (PW-4) specifically named the appellant in their testimony and described his role of possessing a kirpan and assaulting the deceased. The Court found that the appellant was named in the further statement recorded during investigation, and the charge sheet included him. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on credible evidence and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 326 IPC - Testimony of Injured Eyewitnesses - The appellant was convicted under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a kirpan. The High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of injured eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) who specifically named the appellant and described his overt act was sufficient to sustain the conviction, even though the appellant was not named in the FIR but was named in the further statement. (Paras 3-7)
B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Concurrent Findings - Scope of Interference - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and High Court, as the findings were based on credible evidence and not perverse. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is justified when he was not named in the FIR but was named in the further statement and identified by injured eyewitnesses.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC. The sentence as modified by the High Court (period already undergone plus compensation of Rs. 20,000) was upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction under Section 326 IPC can be based on testimony of injured eyewitnesses even if accused not named in FIR but named in further statement
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2009
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna
Saksham Maheshwari (for appellant), Jaspreet Gogia (for respondent-State)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from conviction under Section 326 IPC.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted by Trial Court and High Court for causing grievous hurt with a kirpan; he appealed on the ground that he was not named in the FIR.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 326 IPC; High Court upheld conviction and reduced sentence to period already undergone with compensation of Rs. 20,000.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC is sustainable when the appellant was not named in the FIR but was named in the further statement and identified by injured eyewitnesses.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he was not named in the FIR, and therefore his conviction is not justified.
Respondent-State argued that the appellant was named in the further statement and identified by injured eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4).
Ratio Decidendi
The testimony of injured eyewitnesses who specifically name the accused and describe his overt act is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 326 IPC, even if the accused was not named in the FIR but was named in the further statement. Concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Judgment Excerpts
Though contentions are put forth, a perusal of the relevant papers/materials discloses that in the further statement, the appellant has been named of having possessed a kirpan and has assaulted the deceased-Harbans Singh.
In that circumstance, while the presence of the appellant, possession of kirpan and overt act is established through the evidence of the eye-witnesses who were also injured, we are satisfied that the Trial Court as well as the High Court having taken note of the evidence has appropriately arrived at their conclusion and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion reached through the impugned judgment.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 26.01.2002. Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2002 convicted appellant under Section 326 IPC on 22.02.2005. Appellant appealed to High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2005, which upheld conviction on 23.01.2008. Appellant then appealed to Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 2009, which dismissed the appeal on 31.07.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 326
