Jetha Ram and anr. vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

Jetha Ram, aged 70 years Mohan Ram, aged 21 years Boota Ram alias Booti, ages 28 years, son of Jetha Ram, Arjan Lal, aged 27 years and Darshan Lal, aged 30 years, all residents of village Sahidan wala, Police Station Sadar, Sirsa, were tried under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, in furtherance of their common intention, they intentionally caused the death of Dilbag Singh by inflicting blows with lathis, dandas and fists whilst deprived of power on self control due to grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased who attempted to outrage the modesty of Krishna Rani PW1 daughter of jetha Ram accused. Vide order dated 1331992 the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, convicted Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram, accused, under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each. In default of payment of fine they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Their other three coaccused Boota Ram alias Booti, Arjan Lal and Darshan Lal were acquitted by the learned trial Court Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram appellants filed the present appeal, whereas, Ajaib Singh father of Dilbag Singh deceased filed Criminal Revision No. 473 of 1992 for enhancing the sentence of the present appellants as well as against the acquittal of the aforesaid three accused by the trial Court which was admitted and ordered to be heard along with the present appeal. Since common question of law and fact are involved both the present appeal, as well as the revision shall be disposed of by one order.

Brief facts of prosecution case as emerged from the first information report lodged by Krishna Rani PW daughter of Jetha Ram accused, are, that on 6th of April, 1991 at about 4 p.m. she was present in the fields and was cutting Barseen. Meanwhile Dilbag singh deceased came there and after telling her that he was all alone, embraced her and also attempted to out rage her modesty. Alarm raised by her attracted her father Jetha ram and her uncle''s son Mohana Ram accused to the spot. On seeing them Dilbag Singh tried to run away. He was, however, over powered by both the said accused. Meanwhile Krishana Rani narrated the incident to her father and cousin Mohana Ram. Both of them lost self control and gave beating to Dilbag Singh. She and Jetha Ram also informed the villagers about the occurrence. Thereafter people from the village assembled and she accompanied by her brother Darshan Lal was proceeding to the Police Station, when she met SI Mahal Singh on the way, and made her statement on the basis of which formal first information report was subsequently registered at the Police Station at 7 p.m. under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. SI Mahal Singh then went to the spot, prepared rough site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses and then went back to the Police Station. On receipt of information from Civil Hospital, about the arrival of the dead body of Dilbag Singh, SI Mahal Singh went to the hospital, prepared inquest report and after converting the offence to one under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code sent special report at about 1 p.m. on the following day which reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa at 4 a.m. On 741991, statements of Ajaib Singh, Jasbir Singh and that of Jaswant Kaur mother of the deceased were recorded. At that stage, it was revealed that Dilbag Singh was brought by Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram accused in a tractor trolley to the house of Jetha Ram. There Dilbag Singh was thrown near the chaffcutter installed in the court yard of the house. At that time, Arjan Lal, Boota Ram and Darshan lal gave Danda blows to Dilbag Singh, whereas, Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram gave him fist blows. The aforesaid relations of the deceased did not enter the house as they were threatened that, in case they tried to intervene they would also meet the same fate. They also alleged that they would not go to the police station because there was only one house of theirs belonging to the high community and the whole village was totally dominated by the Kamboj community.

Post mortem examination on the dead body of Dilbag Singh was conducted by Dr. B.S. Guleria, at Civil Hospital Sirsa on 741991 at 9.10 a.m. The said doctor found 21 injuries on various parts of the body including fracture of left partical bone. According to the said doctor the cause of death was due to neurygonic and haemerrhagive shock on account of the injuries received by the deceased, which, were antemortem, and, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The duration between injuries and death was 12 to 24 hours. After completion of the investigation all the five accused were challaned, tried, and out of the said accused Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram were convicted, whereas their other three coaccused were acquitted, as detailed earlier.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the appellants, it has rightly been submitted that even though the learned trial Court has relied on the testimony of Krishna Rani PW 1 concerning the first incident and disbelieved the testimony of Ajaib singh PW 2 and Jasbir Singh PW 3 the two close relations of the deceased in respect of the second incident which allegedly took place at the house of jetha Ram, it had erred in reconstructing a third story of its own to the effect that Dilbag Singh received all the 21 injuries on his person in the fields when the first occurrence took place.

Careful perusal of the testimony of Krishana Rani PW 1, reveals that after Dilbag Singh deceased tried to outrage her modesty on the alarm raised by her, her father Jetha Ram and her uncle''s son Mohana Ram accused were attracted to the spot. They caught hold of Dilbag singh and after Krishana Rani narrated the entire incident they gave Danda blows to Dilbag Singh deceased. During her cross examination she admitted that several people had assembled in the fields when Dilbag Singh was beaten and they also gave beating to Dilbag Singh. It is true that she did state that later on Dilbag Singh was taken to the village in a trolley, but, she has not said a word that Dilbag Singh was given further injuries after he was taken to the village.

Ajaib Singh and Jasbir Singh PWs deposed that after Dilbag Singh was brought by Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram in a tractor trolley to the house of Jetha Ram accused, he was thrown near the chaffutter and at that stage Arjan Lal, Boota Ram and Darshan Lal accused gave dang blows to Dilbag Singh, whereas, Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram only gave fist blows to him. The learned trial Court disbelieving the testimony of Ajaib Singh and Jasbir Singh rightly held that participation of Arjan Lal, Boota Ram and Darshan lal accused in the second incident was utterly doubtful. The learned trial Court held that conduct of both Ajaib Singh and Jasbir Singh PWs is highly unnatural in not making any effort to rescue Dilbag Singh while he was being beaten by the accused. Moreover neither the two close relations of the deceased, nor his mother jaswant Kaur made any effort to inform anybody else in the village about the occurrence, nor tried to rescue Dilbag Singh from the clutches of the accused party with help of police. Apart from that they neither made any effort to enquire about the safety of Dilbag Singh on the evening of the occurrence. The conduct of the aforesaid close relations of the deceased is not consistent with the natural human conduct. The explanation given by them that they remained in their house due to fear does not seem plausible in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. No blood was recovered from the court yard of the house of Jetha Ram accused when the police inspected the same. According to the testimony of Inderjit, Drafts man, PW 8 house of Jetha Ram accused is not visible from the house of Ajaib singh PW. Besides there are other infirmities in the testimony of these two witnesses. According to Ajaib singh PW 2 when the deceased was brought to the house of Jetha Ram, Jasbir Singh PW was serving fodder to the cattle, whereas, according to the latter he was merely talking to his parents at that time. None of these two witnesses had been able to remember the names of 10/15 other persons from the locality who too were present at the spot at the time of the second occurrence. Both these witnesses have also tried to suppress the fact that Dilbag Singh was not involved in any criminal case. Copies of the first information reports produced on the record show that five cases for commission of theft had been registered against Dilbag Singh. The learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the version concerning the second occurrence as deposed to by Ajaib Singh and Jasbir Singh PWs.

From the testimony of Krishan Rani PW 1 it does not transpire that all the 21 injuries were received by the deceased at the time of the first occurrence. Her statement is only of a general nature and she has not specified either the number, nature and seat of injuries received by the deceased at the hands of Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram appellants. In the absence of any legal, cogent or other reliable evidence on the record, it cannot be reasonably inferred that Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram accused were responsible for causing all the injuries to Dilbag Singh, which, subsequently proved fatal.

It is true that both Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram accused did state in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on reaching the spot, they found that the deceased was having sexual inter course forcibly with Krishna Rani PW and therefore in rage they gave beating to Dilbag Singh with Dandas and subsequently brought him in a Panchayatghar of the village in a tractor and subsequently the police took the deceased to the hospital. The aforesaid statement of the accused referred to above either has to be read as a whole or, discarded as a whole, as it amounts to confession. It is significant to note that Krishana Rani PW 1 deposed that apart from the two accused several other persons assembled in the fields also gave beating to Dilbag Singh. In view of this admission, it cannot be reasonably held that Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram accused alone were responsible for causing all the injuries to Dilbag Singh deceased or that death of Dilbag Singh was caused as a result of the injuries inflicted by Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram appellants alone. Thus the question whether the offence committed by them amounts to culpable homicide does not arise in the present case. Nor Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram accused can be held guilty for committing any other minor offence.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home charge under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code against Jetha Ram and Mohana Ram appellants beyond reasonable doubt giving the benefit of doubt. I hereby acquit them. This appeal is allowed accordingly whereas Criminal Revision No. 473 of1992 is dismissed.