Karan Singh vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 234 of 1992, Surja Ram v. Karan Singh and others.

Karan Singh, Ram Kala and Subhash were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Nathu Ram by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Karan Singh was held guilty for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. while Subhash for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C., but both of them were sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ each. Ram Kala accused was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted. Aggrieved by this judgment dated September 28, 1991, Karan Singh and Subhash filed the present appeal while Surja Ram complainant preferred criminal revision mentioned above.

The prosecution case as set up at trial is as follows :

On May 22,1987, Surja Ram complainant PW 7, Ram Sarup PW 8 and Nathu Ram deceased were returning from Fatehabad to Gorakhpur on a tractor which was being driven by Nathu Ram. When they covered a distance of 21/2 kilometers from village Khazuri Jati, they found Karan Singh, Subhash and Ram Kala, all residents of village Gorakhpur, going ahead on a tractor, which was driven by Subhash accused. Nathu Ram wanted to overtake the tractor driven by Subhash and made signal by sounding horn and putting on the lights of the tractor, but Subhash did not make way for him to pass. After covering 78 killas ahead from the canal bridge, Nathu Ram overtook the tractor driven by Subhash and while overtaking his tractor he noticed that some medicines and other articles had fallen from his tractor. He stopped the tractor and then Subhash overtook him and abused Nathu Ram and also expressed his annoyance as to why Nathu Ram asked him to make way for him to pass. Ram Sarup pacified the matter. Nathu Ram turned his tractor back to collect the medicines and other articles while Subhash and others left the place giving a threat that they would teach them a lesson.

At about 10.00 P.M., after collecting the medicines, when Nathu Ram and others reached near the house of Dalip Singh in village Gorakhpur, they found Subhash and Ram Kala armed with lathis and Karan Singh armed with a Gandasa standing there. Ram Kala gave a Lalkara that enemies had come and thereupon Subhash wielded a lathi which hit the left mudguard of Nathu Ram''s tractor Karan Singh gave a Gandasa blow from behind which hit Nathu Ram on his head, as a result of which head of Nathu Ram hit the steering of the tractor. Ram Sarup took care of Nathu Ram while Surja Ram raised alarm. Surja Ram informed his brother and nephew about the occurrence and Nathu Ram was removed in the truck of Dana Ram to the Government Hospital, Hisar. At about 11.55 P.M. when Nathu Ram was brought to the hospital with head injury, Dr. M.L. Kotchar was on duty in Casualty Ward of the hospital. As condition of Nathu Ram was serious, no medicolegal report was prepared and he was referred to Medical College, Rohtak after he was given first aid. The doctor sent ruqqa Ex. PA to the police post located in the premises of the hospital regarding the arrival of Nathu Ram in an injured condition in the hospital. Nathu Ram succumbed to his injuries on his way to Medical College, Rohtak, near Civil Hospital, Hansi. His dead body was brought back to Civil Hospital, Hisar at 2.20 A.M. and intimation regarding the same was sent to Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Hisar, vide ruqqa Ex. PA/1. A wireless message was sent to Police Station Bhuna for further necessary action.

On May 23,1987, at 6.55 A.M., A.S.I. Mehar Singh of Police Station, Bhuma on receipt of a wireless message reached Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he met Surja Ram and recorded statement Ex. PJ on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PH/1 was recorded by MHC Anand Singh. He held inquest and prepared report Ex. PC.

Postmortem examination on the dead body of Nathu Ram was conducted by Dr. Navneet Kumar of Civil Hospital, Hisar, PW 2 who observed the following injury on the dead body :

"An incised would 81/4"x bone deep on the left side of head starting from three inches behind the middle of left ear and going upwards and towards the right side upto four inches above the upper part of right ear. The margins were sharp, cleancut and well defined. Clotted blood was present around the wound."

In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to the injury which was antemortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

A.S.I. Mehar Singh inspected the spot and took into possession blood stained earth, medicines and household articles, tractor bearing registration No. HYE1438 and shoes belonging to the deceased. All the accused were arrested on May 26,1987 and Karan Singh accused was interrogated who made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which he got recovered one lathi and a Gandasa from a room contained wheatstraw. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. After completion of the investigation, the accused were chargesheeted and tried which led to the conviction of the two accused who have filed the present appeal assailing their conviction. Criminal revision has been filed by Surja Ram complainant wherein he prayed that sentence awarded to the appellants may be enhanced to death sentence and Ram Kala who was acquitted by the trial Court be also held guilty for all offence under Section 302 I.P.c. with a further prayer that the accused be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. two lacs to the family of the deceased.

In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of whom Surja Ram PW 7 and Ram Sarup PW 8 gave the ocular account of the occurrence.

At trial, the case set up by the accused was that they had not participated in the commission of any crime and they were falsely involved in the case on account of a dispute regarding a plot and partyfaction in the village.

We have heard Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Jagdev Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and Mr. R.S. Cheema. Senior Advocate (Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, with him) for the complainant revision petitioner and have carefully perused the records.

The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction of the appellants on the ground that there were circumstances existing on the record which led to an inference that the charge was not brought home to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. His main contentions were that there was delay in lodging the first information report which was not properly explained. There was no motive for the commission of the offence. The only evidence against the appellants consisted of statements of close relatives of the deceased though the occurrence took place in village abadi where there were residential houses and medical evidence was in contradiction of the ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses. It was urged that the occurrence took place on May 22, 1987 at about 10.00 P.M. while first information report was recorded at 12.00 noon on May 23, 1987 in civil Hospital, Hisar and it reached the Illaqa Magistrate at Fatehabad at 5.00 P.M. There was a delay of 14 hours in recording the first information report which itself rendered the case of the prosecution as suspicious. There was occasion for the prosecution to concoct a version and implicate innocent persons. Admittedly, there was a Police Post in Civil Hospital, Hisar where the injured was taken by the two alleged eye witnesses who were also accompanied by some other persons, but no effort was made to lodge a report at that police post. In these circumstances, much reliance could not be placed on the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the case of the prosecution suffered from serious infirmity.

We, however, do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel. Delay of 14 hours in lodging the first information report is undoubtedly an important circumstance but this delay remains of no consequence if it is reasonably explained. The question to be determined is whether on facts and circumstances of this case the delay in lodging the report has been explained with plausibility. The deceased was caused an injury at 10.00 P.M. on 22.5.1987 in village Gorakhpur and soon after he was removed to Civil Hospital, Hisar where he reached at 11.55 P.M. The medical officer considering the gravity of the injury rendered first aid and referred the injured to Medical College, Rohtak. Regarding the arrival of the injured, he sent ruqqa to the Police Post situated in the hospital. A.S.I. Subh Ram PW 5 who was Incharge of the Police Post, on receipt of ruqqa, went to casualty ward, but in the meantime the injured had been removed, so he could not contact any one. The injured died on his way to Medical College, Rohtak and the dead body was brought back to Civil Hospital, Hisar. Dr. M.K. Kotchar sent ruqqa Ex. PA/1 to the Incharge, Police Post at 2.25 A.M. informing him regarding the death of Nathu Ram. This ruqqa reached the Police Post at 2.40 A.M. Instead of taking any action himself, A.S.I. Subh Ram sent a wireless message to Police. Station, Bhuna as the occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of that police station. A.S.I. Subh Ram in his crossexamination explained that he tried to find out some person who could give him details of the occurrence but none could be located within the premises of the hospital. Both Surja Ram and Ram Sarup did not report the matter to the police as the doctor had told them that he had informed the police and police will contact them. Surja Ram being a close relative of the deceased had lost his senses on account of shock and remained sitting in a hotel near the hospital till he was contacted by the police on the next day.

Police Station, Bhuna, is at a distance of 45 Kilometres from Hisar and the wireless message was received by A.S.I. Mehar Singh at 6.55 A.M. He left for Hisar on receipt of the message and recorded the statement of Surja Ram which was completed at 12.00 noon. This statement was sent to Police Station, Bhuna where formal F.I.R. was recorded at 2.30 P.M. Special report was delivered to constable Jaspal Singh at 3.15 P.M. and he handed over the same at the residence of the Illaqa Magistrate at Fatehabad at 5.00 P.M. The injury on the person of Nathu Ram was quite serious as his brain membrane as well as brain matter was cut. There was great loss of blood and the injured died within few hours of the receipt of injury. Keeping in view the nature of the injury the main concern of the relations of the deceased was to render him all medical assistance in order to save him. After he expired, his dead body was brought to the Civil Hospital and Surja Ram remained there while the other persons were sent to the village to give information regarding the death of Nathu Ram. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging the first information report stands fully explained and the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any infirmity on this account.

It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the occurrence took place in the village Abdi near the house of Dalip Singh. As per site plan, there were residential houses abutting on the chowk but the prosecution did not cite any independent witness and only two witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased i.e. his uncle and brotherinlaw were examined. Presence of brotherinlaw i.e. Ram Sarup PW 8 who belongs to village Khajuri Jati at the spot was doubtful, more so as his evidence was in contradiction of medical evidence. Ram Sarup stated that Karan Singh gave Gandasa blow from blunt side on the head of Nathu Ram from behind. According to the medical evidence the injury was incised wound and it could not have been caused by the blunt side of the Gandasa. Thecredibility of this witness was, therefore, shaken and no reliance could be placed upon his testimony.

This contention of the learned counsel is untenable and devoid of force in view of the time of occurrence and sitting position of the witnesses on the tractor. The occurrence took place during night and the witnesses were sitting on the right and left side of the deceased on the tractor. The blow was given from behind. According to Surja Ram PW, injury was given with Gandasa which means that Gandasa was used from its sharp side and this fact is corroborated by the medical evidence. Incised would of considerable dimension and depth was found on the head of the deceased. The injury was curved because of the shape of the skull. Gandasa was recovered at the instance of Karan Singh accused and it was shown to the doctor. The doctor gave his opinion Ex. PE/I to the effect that injury on the person of Nathu Ram could be caused by that Gandasa. Gandasa was bloodstained and it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Vide report Ex. PT/1 the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory opined that Gandasa was stained with human blood of group ''A'' (whihc) was the blood group of the deceased as his shirt was also found to be stained with the same blood group. Recovery of Gandasa found to have been stained with the blood of the deceased coupled with medical evidence lent corroboration to the account of occurrence given by Surja Ram. In these circumstances minor discrepancy in the statement of Ram Sarup cannot be considered sufficient to discredit the evidence of the witnesses.

It is not disputed that the occurrence took place at night time and according to the witnesses none was present near the place of occurrence. The suggestion given that people were sleeping in the street was denied. On the day of occurrence Nathu Ram had gone to Fatehabad for the service of his tractor and he was accompanied by his uncle who wanted to purchase some medicines. The medicines purchased by him on that day were seized during investigation. They had also purchased some household articles which too were produced before the police. Ram Sarup PW met Nathu Ramat Fatehabad at about. 7.00 P.M. and he joined him. No question was put to this witness in his crossexamination to test his veracity regarding the factum of his presence at the scene of occurrence. He being a relation of the deceased accompanied him to his village and his presence cannot be viewed with suspicion. When presence of the relation witnesses at the scene of occurrence is established. then there remains no ground for not acting upon their testimony as the relations of the deceased will not allow the real culprits to escape and implicate innocent persons falsely.

It was urged on behalf of Karan Singh appellant that at the time of occurrence, he was less than 16 years of age, so he should have been tried by some competent Children Court under the Haryana Children Act, 1974 and his trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar was vitiated. This contention of the learned counsel is completely devoid of force, as against the commitment order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad on December 10, 1987 Karan Singh had filed Criminal Misc. No. 1766M of 1988 which was disallowed vide order dated May 21, 1990 and it was observed therein, "the conclusion is that the impugned order dated 10.12.1987 committing Karan Singh alias Karni to the court of Sessions, Hissar and not entrusting his trial to the Children Court does not call for interference in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is ordered that the trial shall now continue in the Court of Sessions or any Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, where the parties shall appear on 30.5.1990." The question regarding the age of the accused Karan Singh was, thus, finally settled and it could not be opened again in this appeal and that is why no ground was taken to that effect while preferring the appeal.

It was lastly urged that there was no previous enmity between the parties. The occurrence took place on account of a minor dispute regarding the overtaking of a tractor and only one blow was given. As the relations between the parties were not strained, Karan Singh could not be imputed an intention to murder Nathu Ram and his act amounted only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, on the other hand, contended that Karan Singh had been rightly held guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. as he caused a Gandasa injury with sufficient force which cut brain membrane and brain matter of the deceased. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner. The relevant clause applicable to the facts of this case is one termed as ''Thirdly'' in Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, which reads thus :

"if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."

In the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 465, four postulates required for establishment of the ''thirdly'' clause have been adumbrated by Vivian Bose, J. as follows :

"First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations;

Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."

Learned Judge then observed as follows :

"Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deducted, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional."

In the instant case there is nothing to justify an inference that Karan Singh only intended some minor injury and did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. The injury was not caused in a sudden fight. Rather Karan Singh was waiting for Nathu Ram to reach the spot. In these circumstances, there is no escape except to hold that Karan Singh intended the injury which was inflicted and this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.

The revision petition filed by Surja Ram too is devoid of any merit and the same is also dismissed.