Darshan Ram vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Darshan Ram son of Palli Ram resident of village Dharamkot Sanaur, District Patiala ( hereinafter referred to as `the Appellant'') has preferred this appeal against the judgment of his conviction dated 6.5.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which he has been held guilty for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and the order on sentence of the same date vide which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-with rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of the same for the said offence. The case brought by Police Station, Sadar Patiala against the Appellant is as under:

Complainant, Khandu Ram son of Hazara Ram, a resident of Bazigar Basti, Dharamkot is a labourer. He had got three sons. His eldest son Shanti was aged about 10 years, younger to him named Manjit was aged about 8 years and the youngest named Rinku was aged 6 years. On 23.7.2000, his three sons went to the ground of Shri Radha Krishan Mandir for playing cricket with other children as it was Sunday. With a view to call his children back, the complainant went to the temple in the ground whereof his sons were playing. He saw the Appellant sitting there. He first went to the temple to pay obeisance to the deity. When he came out of the temple, he noticed that the Appellant was snatching the bat from his son Rinku and Rinku was crying and was not willing to part with the bat. The Appellant succeeded in snatching the bat and he gave a blow with the same on the right side of the head of Rinku. The complainant raised an alarm asking the Appellant not to hit his son. Despite it, the Appellant caused another blow with the bat on the head of Rinku, on receipt of which Rinku fell down on the ground. Hearing the noise raised by the complainant, his brother Massu Ram also came to the spot. The Appellant then gave another blow with the bat to Rinku, who was lying on the ground. This blow also fell on the head of Rinku. The complainant and his brother Massu Ram tried to get hold of the Appellant, but he succeeded in escaping while throwing the bat at the spot. The Appellant used to prevent the sons of the complainant from playing cricket there and he used to give beatings to them. On account of the same, he caused injuries with the bat to Rinku with a view to kill him.

The complainant with the help of his brother Massu Ram arranged a vehicle and while he was taking Rinku to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment, he died on the way to that hospital. The dead body of Rinku was brought back by the complainant to his house. The complainant then left his brother Massu Ram at the spot and started for Police Post, Sanaur, District Patiala. He came across Surjit Rai, A.S.I., Incharge, Police Post, Sanaur at Bus Stand, Sanaur to whom the complainant made statement Exhibit-PD. The said statement was thumb marked by the complainant. Putting his endorsement Exhibit PD/1 thereon, Surjit Rai, A.S.I. had sent the said statement to Police Station, Sadar, Patiala where Ajit Singh, A.S.I. registered a case vide F.I.R. Exhibit PD/2 for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Special report of the case was sent to -4 .....

the Illaqa Magistrate.

Surjit Rai, A.S.I. then accompanied the complainant to his house where the dead body of Rinku was lying. He inspected the dead body and prepared the inquest report Exhibit PC/3. He also made a written request for post mortem examination on the dead body of Rinku and had sent the same through H.C. Sham Lal for post mortem examination to Government Medical College, Patiala. Then Surjit Rai, A.S.I. went to the place of occurrence, having the complainant and Massu Ram with him. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan thereof. He took a cricket bat into possession by way of recovery memo Exhibit PE. He also lifted the blood stained earth from the spot and converting the same into a parcel, sealed it with seal `SR'' and took the same into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PF. After the post mortem examination, H.C. Sham Lal brought the parcels of the clothes of the deceased duly sealed by the doctor to Surjit Rai, A.S.I. which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PG. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He had arrested the Appellant on 27.7.2000. He got prepared a site plan to scale of the place of occurrence from Indresh Khanna, a draftsman. The investigation of the case was thereafter transferred to Kuldip Singh, S.I. On 15.8.2000, Kuldip Singh, S.I. recorded supplementary statements of some -

witnesses and on completion of investigation, challan against the Appellant was prepared by Sewa Singh, Inspector.

Charge for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. was framed against the Appellant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 16.1.2001. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

The prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all at the trial in support of its case. Some documents were tendered while some witnesses were given up as unnecessary during the same.

The Appellant was examined thereafter in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure He has denied the truth of the entire prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions. His defence is, therefore, of denial to which he has added that the case has been planted against him by the complainant in connivance with the police on account of enmity. He denied having done anything as alleged by the complainant. He has further stated that the story set up by the prosecution against him is concocted and the witnesses have been deposing against him on account of enmity. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.

Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala found the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 6.5.2002. Convicting him for the said offence vide that judgment, hearing on quantum of sentence was given on the same day and the sentence mentioned above had been awarded to the Appellant.

We have heard Shri Pardeep Singh Punia, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant as amicus curiae and Shri K.D.S. Sidhu, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the Respondent-State. We have gone through the record of the case carefully.

Learned amicus curiae has submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the ground of Shri Radha Krishan Mandir where the deceased was playing with other children including his brothers Shanti and Manjit. According to him, Shanti and Manjit were the natural witnesses of the occurrence. He has submitted that the complainant and Massu Ram, who were examined in this case as PW4 and PW5 respectively, could not have seen the occurrence. According to him, even if their version is believed, they saw the occurrence from a distance. He has, therefore, submitted that no reliance can be placed on their statements.

Learned amicus curiae has then submitted that the complainant while appearing as PW4 has admitted that he was having enmity with the aunt of the Appellant. According to him, on account of that enmity, the complainant has falsely involved the Appellant in this case. He has contended that in fact, the complainant and his brother did not see the occurrence and they are deposing falsely against the Appellant only on account of enmity.

The next submission made by the learned amicus curiae is that the blows are alleged to have been given by the Appellant to Rinku with a bat which he snatched from the deceased. According to him, the Appellant went to the deceased unarmed and as he gave blows with the bat after snatching the same from Rinku, who was not refraining from playing in the ground of the temple, he cannot be said to have given blows with an intention to cause death of Rinku. He has submitted that the offence, therefore, can not fall within the four-corners of Section 302 of the I.P.C.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that the cause of enmity with the aunt of the Appellant had been settled as has been stated by the complainant while appearing as PW4. He has further submitted that Shanti and Manjit had been children of the age of 10 and 8 years respectively. He has next contended that there was no reason to suspect the presence of the complainant and his brother at the spot. He has submitted that the complainant can naturally go to the spot to call back his children, who had gone there to play cricket. He has further submitted that the noise raised by the complainant could attract Massu Ram. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the occurrence could be seen from a distance and nothing has come on record to show that the distance between the witnesses and the place of occurrence was such that nothing could be seen by them from their place. Learned Additional Advocate General has further argued that though the injuries had been caused with the bat snatched from the deceased, yet the bat is a heavy object and the fact that the Appellant gave two blows to Rinku on his head while he was standing and gave third blow when the deceased had already fallen on the ground, would clearly show that he had the intention to kill Rinku. According to him, the acts attributed to the Appellant can not give any other inference except that of his working with an intention to kill Rinku.

PW4, Khandu Ram is the father of the deceased. He is a related witness, but without any further material, he cannot be said to be an interested witness. The only material coming this regard is an admission of PW4 that he had some enmity with the aunt of the Appellant. He has, however, added that the matter had been compromised with the intervention of the police. Nothing has been suggested as to what was that enmity and whether the same survived after a compromise was arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the police. If no enmity was left after the compromise, PW4 cannot be believed to have any motive to falsely implicate the Appellant. Moreover, nothing has come on record to the effect that the complainant had any direct enmity with the Appellant.

PW5, Massu Ram has stated about his seeing the Appellant giving the last blow to Rinku while Rinku was lying on the ground. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he saw the Appellant giving two blows with the bat on the head of Rinku. This is an apparent conflict in the two parts of the statement of PW5. Though, this situation does not make any serious difference to the veracity of his statement, yet even if the statement of PW5 is taken out of consideration, the statement of PW4, Khandu Ram is still there. Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined to prove a fact. In the absence of any enmity between the complainant and the Appellant, as also any other circumstance going against his reliability, the statement of PW4, Khandu Ram can be relied upon to return the verdict of guilt against the Appellant.

As we have already said, Shanti and Manjit are children of tender age. Their non-examination would have no great impact on the case. They were there and the investigating officer did not record their statements. A case cannot be made to suffer for any lapse on the part of the investigating officer. So, non-examination of Shanti and Manjit would have no effect on the credibility of the prosecution case.

The Appellant is said to have given three blows in quick succession. He did not even stop after Rinku had fallen on the ground. His giving third blow to Rinku, who was lying on the ground would clearly show his mental condition. Three injuries suffered on the head of Rinku are reported by Dr. B.S. Bhullar, PW3 to have caused corresponding fractures of the skull and various types of haemorrhage underneath the fractured areas. The force with which these blows have been given is, therefore, evident from the impact of the same as noticed by Dr. B.S. Bhullar, PW3. He cannot be said to be working with the intention to teach Rinku a lesson for coming to the ground of the temple for playing cricket despite his asking him not to do so. It is, therefore, a clear case of the Appellant working with the requisite intention or knowledge to bring his act within the purview of Section 302 of the I.P.C.

In these circumstances, we find no reason from the submissions of the learned amicus curiae to interfere with the verdict of guilt and the order of sentence recorded by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.