Balraj vs State of Haryana

This appeal and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 78-SB of 1988 ''Balwan v. State of Haryana'' arise out of same judgment of the learned trial Court and common questions of fact and law are involved therein. So, this order will dispose of both these appeals.

For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening 8/9-6-1987 in village Gari Sampla, the appellants in the two appeals along with their co-accused Balwan and Barketu were sent up to face their trial for offences punishable under sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 8-1-1988 acquitted Barketu and Rattan but convicted Balraj for an offence punishable u/s 304, Part II and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Balwan u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order dated 11-1-1988, Balraj-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years'' rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further two months'' rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, appellant Balwan was released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year, u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders'' Act, to keep peace and be of good behaviour and to come and receive sentence, if any, during the said period of one year as and when called upon by the Court. He was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation to Prem Sukh injured.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the above-mentioned two appeals challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.

Succinctly, the prosecution story as divulged from the judgment of the trial Court is that Ram Dhan (since deceased) and Balbir residents of village Gari Sampla were real brothers and were married with Smt. Mishri and Smt. Hukma, real sisters. The relations between the two brothers were not cordial and they were living separately.

On 8-6-1987, there was a marriage of Anita, daughter of Balbir. After the Barat left village Gari Sampla, Madan Lal came to the house of Ram Dhan during the night. Ram Dhan and Madan Lal started chatting with each other. Prem Sukh, P.W. 4 and Smt. Santosh P.W. 3 wife of Prem Sukh sat on the main gate of their house to over-hear the talks between Ram Dhan and Madah Lal.

When Madan Lal questioned Ram Dhan for not attending the marriage, the latter replied that his neighbours were responsible for creating antagonism between him and his brother Balbir. In the meantime, Balraj-appellant also came there and started over-hearing the talks between Ram Dhan and Madan Lal. On seeing Balraj-appellant standing in the street, Ram Dhan asked him as to what he was hearing and that he and his family were responsible for creating acrimony between him and his brother Balbir upon which Balraj-appellant got enraged, went inside his house and came with a Jeli. He dealt a Jeli blow like a Lathi on the head of Ram Dhan as a result of which the latter fell down on the ground. Prem Sukh P.W. leaned on Ram Dhan whereas Santosh and Madan Lal made entreaties with folded hands to Balraj not to kill Ram Dhan which attracted Balwan, Barketu and Rattan at the spot. Balwan-appellant was armed with a Pharsa. Barketu-accused was armed with a Lathi and Rattan-accused was empty handed. Rattan exhorted his co-accused that Prem Sukh P.W. be also finished, upon which Balwan accused-appellant gave him two Pharsa blows from the blade side on the back side of his head and when he got up after receipt of injuries, Barketu accused gave him a Lathi blow near his right knee upon which Prem Sukh P.W. also fell down and on the alarm raised by the P.Ws. all the four accused ran away with their respective weapons.

Ram Dhan and Prem Sukh were brought to Civil Hospital, Sampla, where Ram Dhan was declared dead. Dr. Anju Mittal, P.W. 1 sent ruqa Exhibit PA to Station House Officer, Police Station, Sampla and the investigation in the case was taken up. On 9-6-1987, Dr. Anju Mittal conducted medico-legal examination of Prem Sukh also. After the completion of investigation, the appellants and their co-accused were sent up for trial.

After the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge-I acquitted Barketu and Rattan co-accused of the appellants but convicted and sentenced the appellants, as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment.

I have heard learned counsel Shri K. K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri D. K. Khanna, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and perused the paper book.

The learned counsel for the appellants tried to make endeavours to assail the prosecution case but when he was confronted with the impeccable evidence led on the record, he could not urge anything on the merits of the case but vehemently made his submissions regarding the offence made out against the appellants. I find that the view taken by the trial Court with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the crime of causing injuries on the fateful day on the persons of Ram Dhan since deceased and Prem Sukh P.W. is correct and has been substantiated by the evidence on the record. The trial Court has carefully appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and taken into account the medical evidence and then recorded an order of conviction. In my opinion, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is proper and sound. I am not inclined to take a view different than the one taken by the trial Court insofar as involvement of the appellants in the commission of crime is concerned.

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that keeping in view the nature of injuries, only an offence punishable u/s 325, IPC qua Balraj appellant is made out.

For proper appreciation of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the injuries of Ram Dhan deceased may be noticed :-

Ram Dhan deceased

Injuries

There was a lacerated wound 2 cm long with clotted blood. Margins were irregular. The wound was present in the centre of the head in the parietal region. It was 10 cm from the bridge of the nose. It was not bone deep. On opening the scalp, there was ecchymosis of blood over both parietal and occipital region.

On opening skull, there was sub-dural haematoma and brain matter was congested and oedematous (sic).

There was fracture of 6th rib on the left side. There was semi-clotted blood in the left chest cavity. Their conviction is, therefore, well merited and consequently maintained.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of deceased was due to shock and coma due to the injuries described above which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

It is an admitted case that when Balraj-appellant was asked by Ram Dhan-deceased as to why he was hearing their talks, Balraj felt enraged, went inside his house, brought a Jeli and dealt only one Jeli blow like Lathi on the head of Ram Dhan. This injury does not come within the ambit of Section 325. The doctor found a lacerated wound 2 cm long with clotted blood in the centre of the head in the parietal region. On opening the scalp, there was ecchymosis of blood over both parietal and occipital region. There was sub-dural haematoma and brain matter was congested and oedematous (sic). This injury ultimately proved fatal. Balraj-appellant had chosen head as his target and gave only one blow with the same. There is nothing on the record to show that he aimed or gave any other blow with Jeli to Ram Dhan on his head or other part of the body. From the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it can reasonably be inferred that Balraj had no intention to cause the death of Ram Dhan-deceased but he had the requisite knowledge that the injury could prove fatal. The learned trial Court also gave cogent reasons for convicting Balraj-appellant under clause-II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code with which I fully concur.

The conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned trial Court is, therefore, confirmed.

The monster of conviction being visible to the learned counsel for Balraj-appellant, he submitted that the occurrence allegedly took place in June, 1987 and the appeal of Balraj-appellant is being now decided in September, 1999. He further submitted that Balraj-appellant is facing the vagaries of the criminal trial for the last more than 12 years. Ends of justice would be sufficiently met if Balraj-appellant is allowed one opportunity to reform himself and follow the path of rectitude. It was further submitted that the modern trend in penology is complete switch over from retribution to reclamation and reformation of the offender.

I find considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel and feel that sending Balraj to jail after such a long period would be, too harsh. However, he can be ordered to pay some compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased to provide succour to them. Therefore, I reduce the sentence imposed on Balraj-appellant on both the counts to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon him on both the counts is maintained.

According to the retributivist, society as well as the person affected have the right and the duty to vindicate the wrong done to them and punishment in any form may be imposed on the wrongdoer. It does not mean returning of evil for evil but the rightening of a wrong. It is, therefore, essential for the Court while awarding punishment to the offender to do justice to the person affected because the commission of a crime is a wrong done to the person affected. Award of punishment in the form of compensation in this case will satisfy the wrong done to the deceased by Balraj-appellant. The deceased has admittedly suffered the fatal injury at the hands of Balraj-appellant. Hence Balraj-appellant is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid to the legal heirs of Ram Dhan-deceased. The amount of compensation will be over and above the amount of fine already imposed upon him.

However, this order is subject to the deposit of Rs. 5,000/- by Balraj-appellant, as ordered hereinabove, in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which shall be paid to the legal heirs of Ram Dhan deceased as compensation. On the failure of Balraj-appellant to comply with this direction, his appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed and Balraj-appellant shall undergo the remaining period of his sentence.

The appeal of Balraj-appellant is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

Balwan-appellant was convicted u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been ordered to be released on probation of a good conduct for a period of one year. The learned counsel has candidly conceded that the period of probation of one year has since elapsed and that his appeal may be dismissed as having become infructuous. Ordered accordingly.

Order accordingly.