Jagir Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—In this appeal filed by Jagir Singh appellant, challenge is to the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by Shri B. L. Gulati, Sessions Judge, Ambala whose vide judgment dated 17th of September, 1993 held him guilty and convicted him u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further ordered that he shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof, he shall further have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The prosecution case leading to the death of Baru Ram was unfolded by Mam Raj son of Baru Ram whose statement was recorded by A.S.I. Jagir Singh PW8 at Civil Hospital, Ambala on 4th of April, 1992, as a result of which formal F.I.R. came into being at 4.30 p.m. on the same day. He stated that he was a resident of Binjalpur and was engaged in labour. At about 7.30 a.m. his father Baru Ram son of Fagu Ram had gone to Bara (enclosure) for tethering cattle. He and his brother Mahabir were following their father. As they tethered their buffaloes, Jagir Singh son of Jindu Ram, Harijan by caste, started beating their buffaloes there. At this stage he and his brother replied that it was their Bara and that they would tether their cattle there. Thereafter, appellant Jagir Singh got furious and inflicted two eucalyptus stick blows on the head of his father Baru Ram. One of the blows hit his father on the middle of his head and other blow near his left eye towards its left side, as a result of which his father fell down on the ground. When his brother Mahabir and he tried to rescue Jagir Singh appellant gave a bite on his right and left hand and fled away while hurling abuses. Thereafter, they put their father in a tractor-trolley of a person whose name, and address was not known to them and removed their father to hospital at Mullana where doctor referred his father to hospital at Ambala City. It, thus, appears from the facts of the case that Baru Ram was injured.

On 4th of April, 1992 at about 7.30 a.m. at village Binjalpur and the F.I.R. was recorded on the same day at 4.30 p.m. on the statement given by Ram Raj at 3.30 p.m. Initially a case u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant but when Baru Ram died on 8th April, 1992, the same was converted into one u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Report reached the concerned Magistrate at Ambala at 10.10 p.m. on 4th of April, 1992. PW 1- Mam Raj and PW6 Mahavir who are the sons of Baru Ram deceased supported the prosecution versions in all its necessary details.

PW2 Dr. S. K. Gupta Medical Officer Civil Hospital Ambala City examined Baru Ram on 4th of April, 1992 at 12.35 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :

l.A lacerated wound three cm. x 0.2 cm. was present near the midline on the fore-head skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present. An X-ray of skull was advised.

Small lacerated wound was present over left lower eye lid near the lateral angle of the left eye. Fresh bleeding was present.

After some initial treatment, the patient was referred to P.G.I. Dr. Ram Singh Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16 was examined as PW3. He had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Baru Ram and found the following injuries :-

Abraded scab of dark brown colour on left frontal region 3 cm. superior to left supra orbital margin of the skin of 6 x 2 cm.

Stitched wound on the left eye on outer canthus of left eye 2.5 cms.

Abrasion on the bridge of nose 2.5 x 1 cm.

An abrasion on the left ala of nose 1.5 x 0.5 cm.

Stitched wound in mid line of vertex of skull size of 3 cms.

Doctor opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and on examination of scalp and skull there was extra vesation of blood on almost whole of skull. He also noticed linear fracture of right temporal and parietal bones. The cause of death in the opinion of the doctor was due to head injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, of nature. Dr. G. N. Aggarwal who was examined as PW 4 medically examined Jagir Singh son of Jindoo Ram and found no injury on his person. He also examined Mam Raj son of Baru Ram on 15th of April, 1992 and found the following three injuries on his person :--

A dried scab over an abrasion 0.5 cm. which was easily detachable and underlying skins healed at back of right thumb at the inter-phalyngeal region.

A dried scab 0.4 x 0.3 cm. abrasion in size which was easily detachable and underlying skin had healed at the back of left-third metacorpo phalyngcal region.

0.6 cm. x 0.4 cm. dried scab over an abrasion was present which was easily detachable and underlying skin had healed. It was present over the back of left fore metacorpo phalyngeal region and had a distance 1.4 cm. from injury No. 2.

Jagir Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Panchkula was examined as PW 8 and Khushal Singh Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Shah/adpur as PW 9 and they appraised the court of the way and manner in which the investigation had been conducted in the case. When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that on 4th of April, 1992 early in the morning Baru Ram was taking his cattle in front of his house and he stopped him to do so for which Baru Ram protested and many residents of the area had gathered there and some of them hurled stone boulders at Baru Ram causing him injuries. He had never inflicted any injury on the person of Baru Ram and he never made any disclosure statement and no recovery was effected from his house. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and PWs because of enmity on account of bara. He also stated that an entry in the emergency ward register of civil hospital, Ambala City on 4th of April, 1992 was made at the instance of Mam Raj that injuries on the person of Baru Ram were caused incidently all of a sudden which entry was thumb marked/signed by Mam Raj PW 1 and was also signed by Seo Ram. He also examined K. K. Mehta DW 1, Seo Ram, DW 2 and N. K. Jain, DW 3 in defence. After resultant trial, the appellant was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Mr. H. S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, realising the futility of arguing the matter on merits for a complete acquittal, as Mam Raj PW 1 and Mahabir PW 6, who were natural witnesses of the occurrence, have fully supported the prosecution version and had withstood the test of cross-examination with regard to their presence at the time of occurrence, there being also supportive and corroborative evidence with regard to complicity of the appellant in commission of the crime, confined his argument to the nature of offence only. On that score, he vehemently contends that even if the prosecution version is believed in its entirety, the case would at the most fall u/s 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

After hearing Mr. Gill and Mr. Varinder Singh the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance scanning the records of the case, we are inclined to accept the sole contention of the learned counsel noted above. The narration of facts given in the FIR would clearly reveal that there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased Baru Ram. In fact, they are closely related. Baru Ram is uncle of appellant Jagir Singh. The appellant got enraged as Baru Ram was tethering his buffaloes in the Bara, which the appellant was of the view that it belongs to him. In fact, earlier in point of time he had started beating the buffaloes with the same eucalyptus stick that he held in his hand and it is only when Baru Ram had remonstrated and replied back that he would tether the cattle.that he started beating him with the same stick. One of the blows, of course, hit Baru Ram on the middle of his head whereas the other blow fell near his left eye towards left side. The head injuries did ultimately prove fatal as Baru Ram died in the P.G.I, after three days from the day when he had received injuries at the hands of the appellant. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows :-

Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

The explanation to Exception 4, however, states that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

From the facts which have been noted above, we are of the view that it was a case of sudden fight and the case falls within the parameters of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as it was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation and the appellant had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. He earlier in point of time was beating buffaloes with eucalyptus stick and when Baru Ram quarreled with him not to do so, he gave two injuries with the same stick. The Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, where the accused was proved to have caused three injuries to the deceased with knife and one of the injuries which had proved fatal, and there were no circumstances showing that injuries had been inflicted by accused in a sudden quarrel, without premeditationand in a heat of passion, held that the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Exception 4 to Section 300 was held to have been attracted and conviction . was accordingly altered to one u/s 304, Part I.

In the present case the weapon of offence happens to be a eucalyptus stick and therefore, in our view, the case would fall u/s 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and instead held guilty of an offence u/s 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced tofour years rigourous imprisonment. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.