• Brain Booster Articles

CASE COMMENT: RAVINDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA

Author: Sorna S G, III year of B.A.,LL.B.(Hons.) from CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore, Karnataka


ABSTRACT

In Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana Ors case the interpretation plays in consequences. It is related to injustice to the victim in this case. Husband (Ravindar Singh) asked her wife to give divorce to him long back. The husband is having affairs with another woman, so he wants divorce to his wife. The wife refused to give divorce to him. And she got to know that his husband was having extra-marital affairs. She had ignored and also refused to give divorce to her husband. The husband did not like that she refused to give him divorce when he asked. The husband previously planned to harm his wife because she refused to give him divorce. The FIR was registered under substantive law section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 342 of IPC.


INTRODUCTION

1. Case - Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana Ors.

2. Criminal Appeal No - 931 of 2015

3. Petitioner - Ravinder Singh

4. Respondent - State of Haryana Ors.

5. Topic - Regard to consequences (injustice and inconvenience)

6. Bench - Goswami, P.K.

7. Court - Supreme Court of India

8. Equivalent citations - 1975 AIR 856, 1975 SCR (3) 453


FACT

●This case is related to hurt and grievous hurt under IPC and connected to interpretation. The husband was involved in an extramarital affair and he wanted to give divorce to his wife. His wife refused to give divorce when he asked. As a result, the husband used a weapon like acid and threw it on her face. The bodily pains and face burned because of this act. The provisions are section 302, 326, 326A, 326B of IPC.


●The statues are under Indian Penal code which are connected to inconvenience and injustice in Interpretation. Section 147 of IPC is guilty of rioting, two years punishment and fine. Section 148 of IPC is rioting with deadly weapon, three years punishment and fine. Section 149 of IPC is unlawful assembly guilty of offence (common object). Section 323 of IPC is punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to any person. Section 324 of IPC is voluntarily causing hurt to any person by having dangerous weapons. Section 342 of IPC - It is wrongful confinement, one year imprisonment.


● Without his wife's consent he harmed her the next day of the rail journey with her. The accused, Ravinder Singh burns sulphuric acid on her face and the remaining other parts of her. Her body is caused by several and multiple deep injuries. He threw acid on her face because she refused to give divorce to him. This is the main reason for this incident. As a result of the acid attack, the deceased suffered serious injuries and fell to the ground. And later, the wife of Ravinder, she died. The husband caused murder and the wife died. He had charged under section 302 of IPC. The act of the husband caused death and throwing acid is illegal. The sections charged under this act are section 302, 326, 326A, 326B of IPC. His actions and section are related. He caused grievous hurt and he voluntarily caused hurt to the wife and which leads to death in the end. The trial court to pay the said amount of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.


●It is inconvenient to the victims who suffered. Section 302 of IPC is punishment for the murder, the accursed planned and murdered his wife by using dangerous weapons like sulphuric acid, caused grievous hurt. This leads to harm to her body parts and permanently causes scars and other injuries on her face.


ISSUES

1. Whether the substantive law is giving or not giving Justice to the victims?

2. Judges decided to give less compensation amount for the relatives of victims?

3. Precautions and various methods to give protection to the victims?

4. Judges interpreting the punishment and fine imposed on the accused?

5. Victim was died because of the accused but the Judges didn't decide to give life imprisonment punishment to the accused under interpretation of statutes?


ARGUMENT

● The Court should remove the injustice on the side of the victim. The accused, committed offence and the section involved are section 302, 326, 326A, 326B of IPC. Section 326 of IPC is whoever is voluntarily causing grievous hurt and by using some weapons or dangerous weapons. The accused, Ravinder Singh used weapons like sulphuric acid, he threw on her face. It is an offence under IPC. The acid heated the substance and burned her face. It caused injuries/hurts to her body and grievous hurts on the other parts of her body.


● In Interpreting the statute the inconveniences to be avoided by the judges of supreme Court. The punishment for sec 326 of IPC is imprisonment for life or extend to ten years of imprisonment. He will be liable to pay a fine. Section 326A of IPC is voluntarily causing grievous hurt by using acid. It means whoever is causing damage to another person’s body whether it may be permanently or temporarily. Having an intention to hurt another person by using acid.


● The accused, Ravinder Singh voluntarily used acid to hurt his wife in the manner she died. Section 326B of IPC is voluntarily making an attempt to throw acid to another person. It refers to throwing or attempting the acid in a voluntary manner to cause harm to the person. Whoever has intention to cause harm to the person and makes permanent or partially damaging the body parts and facial portions of the person.


JUDGEMENT

● The supreme Court of India, held that the punishment for sec 326A of IPC is imprisonment for life or extend to ten years of imprisonment. He will be liable to pay a fine. The fine amount is based on the medical treatments of the victim, it should be justifiable to the victim. The fine is like compensation for her hurt or death, if the victim lives the fine amount given to the victim or if the victim died the fine compensation should be given to the relative members of the victim. The punishment for this offence is imprisonment for five to seven years and liable to pay the fine according to victim’s compensation based on the medical treatments and harm or injuries caused to the victims. The action caused by the acid attack should be irreversible in manner.


● The acidic substance which may result in permanent disability and injuries like scars on the body. So, the accused Ravinder Singh is liable under this section of IPC. Section 302 of IPC is punishment for murder, the accused, Ravinder Singh murdered his wife by the act of throwing acid on her face and caused harm, death. The punishments for the murder is imprisonment for life or death to that person who caused the murder. And also he shall be liable to pay a fine based on the victim’s compensation for death or harm. The circumstances found in the record would permit the imposition of any lesser than the prescribed sentence imposed on the respondent. To show mercy to such a heinous crime would be an abuse of justice and a claim for remission would not be true. The Supreme Court, in terms of facts and circumstances of the case, did not the violation of the original court's judgement


ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Hence, this case is relating to the injustice under regard to consequences in Interpretation. The inconvenience to be removed by the judges of the supreme Court of India. The evidence obtained by prosecutors that the defendants harmed the which resulted in his death and sentencing of the defendants was not challenged. The only point to consider is whether there has been a misuse of the High Court in reducing the severe sentence in this period and ordering the respondent to pay the amount of compensation is correct. The deaths were well-established by prosecutors and that the punishment case could not be replaced by compensation. It has been argued that in view of the nature of the assault and injuries, the defendants do not deserve mercy and the High Court in showing improper sympathy in reducing the sentence within that time. The accused charged under section 302 of IPC is punishment for the murder. But the life imprisonment was not imposed on the accused Ravinder even though the accursed wife (victim) had died. Therefore, the injustice has to be separated and the court has to deliver justice to the suffering person. Before giving Justice to the victim, the victim was grievously hurt by the accused. The Legislations and the statue has to bring changes in the society.


REFERENCE

1. Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana Ors, 1975 AIR 856, 1975 SCR (3) 453

2. IPC, 1860

3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1067331/