Ram Narain vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Ram Narain appellant herein through this Criminal Appeal No. 71DB of 1995 has called in question the order of conviction and sentence dated 28th of November, 1994 recorded by Shri K.S. Uppal, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which has was held guilty for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default whereof he was further ordered to undergo R.I. for one year.

The report with regard to murder of one Raja Ram a colleague workman of the appellant was reported by none other than the appellant himself when on 27th of June, 1992 at 6.35 A.M. he stated before Swaran Singh ASI PW.5 that on the intervening night of 26th/27th of June, 1992, he alongwith Ram Lal was on duty at night from 8 P.M. to 2 A.M., the next day, for feeding the coal. At about 12.00 P.M. one person came to him. He was sporting beard and had long hair. He was also wearing turban and Kurta Pajama. His height was about 5'' 8". Just on coming he asked him not to make a noise. In the meantime, three more persons came there who enquired from him as to where was their Mistri. He replied that he was lying on the cot. Then all the four persons started beating Mistri, who was lying on the cot. Out of them, one person gave knife blow on the head resulting into the death of Mistri. Thereafter, he was also given beatings. He and his companions raised an alarm ''save, save'' as a result of which their labour woke up. On seeing them, they ran away from the spot. Due to night time, information was not given to anyone. Now, he alongwith Ram Lal was coming to lodge a report when ASI met him. It transpires from the record that whereas occurrence leading to the death of Raja Ram took place on the intervening night of 26th/27th of June, 1992, in the brickkiln at village Thandewala, the FIR Ex.PL came into being at 6.35 A.M. on 27th June, 1992. Formal FIR bearing No. 95 dated 27th of June, 1992 under sections 302/34 was registered at Police Station Muktsar at 7.05 A.M. The special report with regard to the incident reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Muktsar at 9.00 A.M. on the same day.

The prosecution endeavoured to bring home the offence against the appellant by examining Dr. Karnail Singh. S.M.O. Civil Hospital Muktsar PW.1 who stated that on 27th of June 1992, he was posted in Civil Hospital, Muktsar and conducted postmortem on the dead body of Raja Ram. He found the following injuries on his dead body.

"1. Horizontal incised wound 13 cm x 2 cm on the right side of the face 2 cm below and parallel to right eye extending backward just behind the right ear and cutting the pinna of the ear at the level of external auditory meatus. On dissection, the underlying maxillary and mandible bones were cut and also the underlying blood vessels were cut.

Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the right cheek 2 cm below to injury No. 1.

Doctor further stated that injury No. 1 was solely sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were antemortem in nature. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was about five minutes and between death and post mortem was about 12 hours. The doctor further opined that injuries on the person of deceased could be received as a result of blow with Kulhari. He further stated that injuries could be as a result of single blow but he could not say that it started from one side and went towards other side. PW.4 Dr. V.K. Sobat had medically examined appellant Ram Narain on 27th of June, 1992 at 9.15 A.M. and found the following injuries on his person :

"1. Incised wound 6.5 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep in the right cheek. Clotted blood was present.

Two incised wounds 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep 4 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep on the forehead 2.5 cm a part. Clotted blood was present.

Two parallel incised wounds 9 cm x 0.1 cm, 9.cm x 0.1 cm into skin deep 3 cm apart on the front of right thigh 7 cm from the right knee joint. Clotted blood was present.

Incised wound 8.5 cm x 0.1 cm skin deep on the front of left thigh 11 cm from the left knee joint. Clotted blood was present.

Two incised wounds 2 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep each on the front of left leg in the middle. Clotted blood was present.

All the injuries were simple and the probable duration of the injuries was within 12 hours. The weapon used was sharp for all the injuries. He gave an opinion that injuries on the person of the appellant could be selfsuffered. PW.2 Patwari of the area only stated that he had prepared the scaled plan of the place of occurrence. Out of two eyewitnesses, namely Ram Lal and Ashok Kumar; later, the son of the deceased, only Ram Lal was examined. Summons sent to Ashok Kumar could not be served upon him and after giving few opportunities, evidence of the prosecution was closed. It may be mentioned at this stage that the prosecution, preceding the actual trial, had produced Ram Lal and Ashok Kumar before the Magistrate who recorded their statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ram Lal PW.3 stated that he knew deceased Raja Ram as also appellant Ram Narain. He used to work as a labourer on the brickkiln of Rikhi Ram in the area of village Thandewala, Tehsil Muktsar. Raja Ram was working as Pardhan of the labourers on the said brickkiln and used to get work from the labour. Ram Narain appellant also used to work as labourer on feeding coal in the brickkiln. Ashok Kumar son of deceased Raja Ram was also working as labourer on the same brickkiln. On the day of occurrence, Ashok Kumar and Raja Ram were sleeping while he and appellant Ram Narain were on duty of feeding coal in the brickkiln. At mid night, Ram Narain left for his Kotha and brought an axe from the said kotha and hit Raja Ram twice with the said axe on the face and head of Raja Ram while he was sleeping. Raja Ram died on the spot as a result of injuries. Raja Ram told him and Ashok Kumar not to disclose the murder of Raja Ram or else he and Ashok Kumar would be killed in the same manner. He further told him to say to public at large that some extremists numbering four had killed Raja Ram but he disclosed about the murder of the deceased to the police and his statement was recorded.

In crossexamination he stated that the police officials met him on the way near the brickkiln, when he was going to the police station and the appellant remained behind the Kotha when he went to lodge the report with the police. Ram Narain appellant was present on the brickkiln when the police arrived there and the police arrested him when he told the facts to the police. He felt fearful from the appellant and even now he has fear from him. In his crossexamination he also stated that the appellant had told Ashok Kumar that since he (accused) worked more and should have been the Pardhan of the labour as Pardhan got more pay and after killing Raja Ram, he (appellant) would become Pardhan of the labour. Raja Ram was his uncle (Phupha) from his village and he had no quarrel with Raja Ram deceased. Raja Ram and appellant Ram Narain hail from the same village and he has no quarrel with appellant Ram Narain. S.I. Swaran Singh was examined as PW.5. He gave in detail the way and manner he had conducted investigation in this case. In his exminationinchief itself he stated that he recorded the statement of appellant on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded and the same was sent to the Police Station. He alongwith the police party had then gone to the place of occurrence whereas the appellant was asked to go to hospital as he was having injuries on his person. He prepared inquest report on the dead body of Raja Ram which was identified by Ashok Kumar and Ram Dev. He also prepared site plan Ex.PM of the spot. However, in his crossexamination he denied the suggestion that the appellant was already present in the brickkiln before the police party reached there. He also denied the suggestion that the appellant was arrested from brickkiln in the presence of Ram Lal.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellant while denying the incriminating material put to him further stated that he was innocent. Sister of Ram Lal was married to Pitamber who was the son of maternal uncle and they, the wife and husband were not having cordial relations with each other. The said lady was residing in her parental house. relation with Ram Lal were strained. He was rickshaw puller at Muktsar and Ram Lal was residing in village Thandewala. Ram Lal due to strained relations with him came to Muktsar and caused injuries to him and his friend Samli got him admitted in the hospital and after treatment he was discharged from the hospital. He was falsely implicated at the instance of Ram Lal who was related to the deceased. In defence he examined Ishwar Chander DW.1 who had brought the summoned record relating to appellant Ram Narain. According to the Resgister Ram Narain appellant was not admitted in Civil Hospital, Muktsar. Ram Narain reported in OPD of Civil Hospital, Muktsar on 27th of June, 1992 and was treated as outdoor patient.

On the first blush, i.e. after going through the paper book, we were of the opinion that testimony of SI Swaran Singh coupled with the statement of appellant himself and other material brought on record left no scope for any arguments on behalf of the appellant. However, on deeper examination and on account of the assistance rendered by Mr. M.J.S. Waraich, who was appointed by us to defend the appellant as amicus curiae, the present appeal being through jail, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellant and the prosecution story is not without blemish. It may be recalled that the FIR Ex. PL/2 came into being on 27 of June, 1992 at 7.05 A.M. which was recorded by ASI Swaran Singh on the statement made by none other than the appellant. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant ASI Swaran Singh had sent the message to the Police Station Sadar, Muktsar where formal FIR came to the recorded at 7.05 A.M. and as mentioned above, the special report with regard to the incident reached the Special Magistrate at 9.00 A.M. It has come in the evidence that immediately after the appellant had made the statement, the only eyewitness examined in this case i.e. Ram Lal made a statement involving the appellant in committing the murder of Raja Ram and further that since the appellant and Ram Lal had made their statements almost in the brickkiln itself, the police had proceeded at the place of occurrence. Inquest report was prepared at that very time and yet in column No. 3 of the inquest report with Caption, "Date and hour of discovery" it is mentioned 27.6.92 at 5.50 A.M. We have seen the original inquest report and there too the time mentioned is 5.50 A.M. If for the first time the police had come to know about the murder of Raja Ram at about 6.35 A.M. or for that matter when Ram Lal who was almost following the appellant to get his statement recorded i.e. immediately after the appellant had made a statement, it is not possible that date and hour of recovery of dead body could be 27th of June, 1992 at 5.50 A.M. The word date and hour of discovery if read with its earlier columns i.e. 1 and 2 would certainly mean the date and hour of recovery of the dead body. How could the dead body of Raja Ram be discovered at 5.50 A.M., when as mentioned above, the FIR came to be recorded at 6.35 A.M. When this discrepancy was pointed out to the learned State Counsel, he could not provide any answer to it. Coupled with this blemish, there is no explanation of injuries on the person of the appellant. As noticed above, the appellant had sustained as many as five injuries. Even though all the injuries have been opined by the doctor to be selfsuffered, we are not in agreement with the opinion of the doctor that all these injuries could be selfsuffered. Injury No. 1 is incised wound 6.5. cm x 0.1 cm skin deep on the right cheek. There were to two injuries 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep and 4 cm x 0.1 cm x skin deep on the forehead. Clotted blood on both injuries i.e. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 was present. Other injuries are, of course, either on right thigh, left thigh and left leg. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 do not appear to be selfsuffered. It is proved from the record of the case that the appellant suffered injuries at about the same time when Raja Ram died. Doctor further mentioned that the weapon used was sharp for all the injuries sustained by the appellant. The only eyewitness examined in this case Ram Lal, in our view, has not come up with complete truth. If he is actually witness of the commission of crime, he has certainly suppressed material facts and we are quite convinced that the occurrence did not take place in the way and manner as suggested by the prosecution. Even though, therefore, the theory propounded by the appellant may not be true but the prosecution with a view to succeed has to stand on its own legs. Added to this is major discrepancy in the prosecution story. It may be recalled that as per prosecution version, the appellant prior in point of time reported the matter, even though he has given his own version with regard to the incident. The only eyewitness who had implicated the appellant in the statement made by him thereafter stated that the appellant remained behind the Kotha when he went to make report to the police and the appellant was present in the brick kiln when the police came at the brickkiln. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer has denied the suggestion that the appellant was present at the brickkiln when the police party reached there. He further denied the suggestion that the appellant was arrested from the brickkiln in the presence of Ram Lal. It is surprising that the police had produced the son of the deceased also before Magistrate who had in turn recorded his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that son of the appellant was not examined as he could not be served and the prosecution evidence was closed but it could not be expected at that stage that son of the deceased would turn hostile to the prosecution version. In our view, there was no necessity at all to record the statement of the son of the deceased under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that circumstance also raises doubt in our mind with regard to complicity of the appellant in commission of the crime alleged against him. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the firm view that the appellant deserves to have the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. If not required in any other case, the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.