Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and as a result thereof, sentence to life imprisonment.

The occurrence leading to the alleged murder of Rai Singh, deceased, took place on 30.3.1988 at about 10 P.M. in village Rajound at the canecrusher owned by the appellant and his brother. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of occurrence, Rai Singh, deceased Ramkala, PW4, Rohtash, PW5, and Surja (given up as unnecessary) were employed as labourers on the crusher in question by the appellant. At about 10 P.M. on the aforesaid date, Rai Singh, deceased and Rohtash, PW5, were feeding the canecrusher while Surja was feeding the fire, and Ramkala, PW4, was preparing Gur. Rajinder Singh, appellant, asked Rai Singh as to why he was inserting more sugarcane in the crusher and saying so, he also abused the deceased in the name of his sister. This led to an exchange of abuses between the two, whereupon the appellant lifted an iron phuli. On seeing the appellant coming towards him, the deceased started running. The accusedappellant chased the deceased and after some distance, caught hold of him and inflicted a blow with the said iron phuli on the head of the deceased, who on receipt of the same, fell down. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot along with the iron phuli Ramkala, PW4, Rohtash, PW5, Surja and others then took the deceased in a buggi to the hospital at Rajound, where, on being examined by Dr. V.K. Sharma, PW2, he was declared dead. Dr. V.K. Sharma, PW2, sent intimation, Exh.PB, to police station Rajound in that regard. On receipt of intimation, Exh.P6, S.I. Sant Lal, PW7, went to Primary Health Centre, Rajound, and recorded the statement, Ex.PE, of Ramkala PW4. He sent this statement to the police station for the registration of a case, where on the basis of the same, the case was registered under formal FIR Ex. PE 1. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report Ex.PA/3, on the deadbody of Rai Singh which was lying in the hospital, and under request for postmortem examination, Exh.PA/2, he sent the deadbody for postmortem examination. He also recorded the statements of Rohtash, PW5, Surja Lila and Lachhman in the hospital. Thereafter, this Investigating Officer in the company of Ramkala, PW4 and Rohtash, PW5, went to the spot on that very night and on the following morning, he inspected the site of occurrence and prepared rough site plan, Ex.PC. He also lifted bloodstained earth from the spot, which he sealed and seized under seizurememo, Ex.PF, attested by Ramkala, PW4, and Rohtash, PW5. He also recorded the statements of PWs Mohan Singh and Maghar Singh, and searched for the accused in vain.

On 3.4.1988, this Investigating Officer arrested the accused from the kotha of his uncle situated in the fields and interrogated him in the presence of Dalbir, PW6, and Mungia. On interrogation, the accused came out with a disclosure statement, Ex.PG, to have kept concealed the bloodstained phuli in the sugarcane field, and in consequence thereof, got recovered bloodstained phuli, Ex.P6. The same was sealed and seized under seizurememo, Ex.PG/2 after its sketch, Ex.PG/1 was drawn. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the appellant was challenged and put to trial leading to his impugned conviction and sentence.

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined in all, seven witnesses, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Promila Sharma, PW1, Dr.V.K. Sharma, PW2, Draftsman B.S. Buhra, PW3, Ramkala, PW4, Rohtash, PW5, Dalbir, PW6, and S.I. Sant Lal, PW7, besides tendering in affidavits of police officials and reports of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PL and PL/1.

When examined under Section 313, CrPC the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated them to be incorrect and pleaded his innocence in the crime. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in support of his defence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their help, scanned the evidence on record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the correctness of the ocular account as deposed by Ramkala, PW4, and Rohtash, PW5. Otherwise also, both these witnesses have given a very consistent and natural account of the circumstances resulting in the death of Rai Singh deceased. Their testimony does not suffer from any dent or infirmity which may persuade this Court to take a view different from the one adopted by the trial Court. Even otherwise, they are the most natural witnesses. At the relevant time of occurrence, they were working as labourers at the canecrusher of the accused. They belong to the village of occurrence itself and they have no illwill or motive to depose falsely against the appellant.

The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the act of the appellant at best brings him within the purview of Section 304 Part II IPC and the approach of the Court below in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not based on sound reasoning. We find substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit the crime and he did not act in a cruel manner. The appellant acted just in a heat of passion. It is on record that when the appellant saw the deceased, his servant, putting excessive sugarcane in the crusher, he felt offended and abused the latter who thereupon returned the abuses. On seeing the deceased returning abuses, the appellant got provoked because the deceased was his servant and he lifted a phalli with which he inflicted only one blow, which fell on the head. From the very fact that the appellant did not attempt to cause another blow, it can safely be said in the circumstances that he had not intended to cause that particular injury which resulted in his death. If that is so, then the offence committed by the appellant would be one of culpable homicide because the fact that the appellant had knowledge that he was likely to cause death by such an act cannot be attributed to him, as has been held by the Apex Court in Hardev Bhanji Joshi v. State of Gujarat, 1992(2) C.C. Cases 150 (SC). In the circumstances, the case would thus fall under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by the trial Court and instead we convict him for an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and as a result thereof, sentence him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for two years.

The appeal is partly allowed.