Ram Sarup and Others vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—This is an appeal filed by Ram Sarup, Ram Niwas, Vijay Kumar, Mukesh, Virender, Vikram, Prem alias Sher Singh, Shalender, Mahender. Goni Ram and Sher Singh against the judgment/order dated 1.7.2003/5.7.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hissar whereby he convicted the appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo RI for six months. Appellants were also convicted Under Sections 323/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months. Appellants were also convicted under .Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.

The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PM of Atma Ram son of Mani Ram given to ASI Balbir Singh at Police Station Adampur on 10.08.2000 at 4.05 a.m. Atma Ram stated that he is living along with his family in a Dhani in his fields. On 09.10.2000 at 10 p.m., he along with his brother Rajinder, sister Geeta Devi, wife Salochna Devi, Chachi Birma Devi, Sehdev son of his Phua (father''s sister''s son) were sleeping in the Dhani. His father Mani Ram was sleeping near the tubewell about 1-1/2 killas away. At about 10 p.m., Mani Ram, Het Ram, Goni, Ram Sarup, Parkash, Mahender, Sunder, Sher Singh, Neki Ram, Subhash, Virender, Gopi Ram, Laddu Ram, Vijay Singh, Shalender, Mukesh, all armed with Lathis came with a common object to the tubewell. On coming there, they raised a lalkara asking Mani Ram to call his son as they would now teach him a lesson. On hearing the lalkara, Mani Ram shouted in a loud voice saying, "Atma Ram, come running, Goni etc. have come to kill us". Complainant Atma Ram thereafter along with his brother Rajinder, Salochna, Geeta Devi, Birma Devi and Sehdev came running to the tubewell. Goni Ram etc. started giving blows to Mani Ram. Atma Ram along with others tried to rescue his father but they were also given injuries by the accused with their respective weapons. All of them broke the right leg of Mani Ram and inflicted a number of injuries on bom hands and waist of Mani Ram. They also inflicted injuries to complainant Atma Ram on his head and left hand and waist. On hearing the noise, Jagdish son of Natha Ram came to the spot to rescue them, but he was also given injuries. The cause of grudge is that Mukesh, Sunder etc. with the excuse of doing exercises, used to come to the Dhani, but in fact kept a bad eye on the complainant''s daughters. This was objected to by the complainant. After giving injuries, accused went to their Dhani taking their weapons along with them. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PM 1 was recorded. Special report reached the JMIC, Hissar on 10.08.2000 at 9 a.m.

The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW1, Dr. Saroj Bhakal PW2, Inspector Raja Ram PW3, Om Parkash Patwari PW4, Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6, Sunder alias Rajinder alias Harjinder PW7, Ramesh Chander PW8. Constable Rambir Singh PW9, Siri Bhagwan P W10, Azad Panchi Photographer PW 11. MHC Suresh Kumar PW 12, Constable Dharambir PW13 and ASI Balbir Singh PW14.

this Court vide order dated 02.05.2006, had directed the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Hissar to hold an enquiry as to whether Mukesh son of Laddu Ram was a juvenile or not on the date of occurrence. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 21.07.2006, after holding a detailed enquiry, concluded that appellant Mukesh son of Ladhu Ram on the date of occurrence was a major and not a minor.

Learned Counsels for the appellants Shri Sanjay Vasishth, Advocate and Shri R.N. Kush, Advocate have argued that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. The occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m. on 09.08.2000. It has come in evidence that the wall of the Civil Hospital, Adampur and that of the Police Station, Adampur is common. Statement of Atma Ram PW5 Ex. PM on the basis of which FIR Ex. PM 1 came into existence, was recorded at 4.05 a.m. on 10.08.2000 at Civil Hospital, Adampur. The formal FIR was recorded at 4.15 a.m. on the same day. The special report reached the JMIC, Hissar at 9 a.m. on 10.08.2000. There is no explanation coming forward as to the 11 hours delay between the occurrence and the special report. The eye-witness account as spelt out by Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 does not inspire confidence. Specific injuries have been not been attributed to any of the appellants. All that these witnesses have said is that deceased was encircled and injuries were given to him with Lathis. As per the FSL report Ex. PAA and the serologist report Ex. PBB, human blood was found on the Lathis Exs.P26 of Ram Samp and Ex. P1 of Ram Niwas respectively. From rest of the Lathis recovered from the remaining appellants, blood was found to be disintegrated. Jagdish, a prosecution witness who was named in the FIR, though he had witnessed the occurrence and was injured, was not brought into the witness-box by the prosecution, as he was not ready to support the case of the prosecution. Jagdish PW was not related to the complainant party and was an independent witness.

Learned Counsel for appellants Sher Singh, Ram Niwas and Goni Ram has argued that the FIR does not mention the name of Sher Singh, but Atma Ram PW5 has only stated in the FIR that two sons of Neki Ram also inflicted injuries on the deceased. Sher Singh son of Neki Ram was found innocent by the Investigating Agency, but he was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Appellant Ram Niwas has not been named in (he FIR. but one Om Parkash has been named in his place, though the prosecution witnesses at a later stage tried to put their case in such a manner that Ram Niwas and Om Parkash are the same persons. Goni Ram was aged 60 years on the date of occurrence and he was also summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. He being an old man of 60 years, could not have inflicted Dang blows and even if for the sake of argument, he would have at the most stood on the side, without inflicting any injuries on the deceased. Three appellants Sher Singh, Ram Niwas and Goni Ram are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Thus, showing that out of the total 18 accused initially named in the FIR, 7 were acquitted by the trial Court. Sher Singh, Ram Niwas and Goni Ram are also innocent. This clearly shows that the complainant and the eye-witnesses have falsely implicated the other appellants also and are not telling the truth.

The medical evidence as brought on record by Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW I and Dr. Saroj Bhakal PW2 shows that there were 8 injuries on the person of deceased, the cause of death were injuries Nos.2 and 3. Injury No. 2 being a contusion and abrasion over the right thigh and injury No. 3 being a lacerated wound on the right lower leg with commuted fracture of right femur tibia and fibula. These injuries in the natural course of events could not have caused (he death of Hari Ram but as the deceased was an old man of 68 years, the appellants did not have the knowledge or intention to commit his murder. At the most, what can be attributed to the appellants is that they wanted to injure Mani Ram deceased on the legs and arms.

As per the testimony of Atma Ram, PW5 Geeta Devi PWb and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7, appellants armed with lathis gave injuries to the deceased and also others of the complainant party. The occurrence lasted for about 5 minutes. The ocular account is not corroborated by the medical evidence. If 11 persons armed with Dangs gave injuries for some minutes to the deceased who was a 68 years old man, he would have received much more injuries on his body than just 8, as shown in the most-mortem report prepared by Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW 1.

Learned Counsel for the appellants have relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rattan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 456, where in similar circumstances, the offence u/s 302 IPC was converted into Section 325 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the State has argued that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m. on 09.08.2000 and the FIR Ex. PM 1 was recorded on 10.08.2000 at 4.15 a.m. Special report reached the JM1C, Hissar on 10.08.2000 at 9 a.m. The distance between the police station and Hissar is 20 Kms. The first and foremost concern of the complainant party was to save the life of Mani Ram and to get medical aid for him along with Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6, Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 and Jagdish PW who were also injured. It is after getting medical aid thereafter, that the police was informed and FIR Ex. PM 1 came into existence. The eye-witnesses could not have given a mechanical account of the injuries being inflicted on the deceased as firstly they were themselves attacked and secondly there were 11 persons who had inflicted Dang blows on the person of the deceased. Some Dang blows struck Mani Ram and some probably hit the cot. This is the reason that there were 8 injuries on the person of the deceased. Human blood was detected on the Lathis recovered from appellants Ram Sarup and Ram Niwas. The Lathis recovered from the remaining appellants also had blood, but it was disintegrated.

Producing Jagdish PW would have only added to quantity, and not the quality of the witnesses. Thus, he was given up the prosecution, Appellants Sher Singh, Ram Niwas and Goni Ram, though found innocent, but the learned trial Court in its wisdom summoned them u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and after recording of the entire evidence, convicted them finding them also to be a party to the crime.

The medical evidence corroborates the ocular account. Appellants knew that deceased was an old man and inflicting injuries on his arms, legs and back would be enough to extinguish his life. If they did not have the intention to commit the murder of Mani Ram, then 11 of them would not have come armed with Lathis, to attack him. This could be done also by a few persons i.e. about 2/3 persons. Offence committed by the appellants is culpable homicide amounting to murder. They had the knowledge and intention to commit the murder of Mani Ram.

We have heard the teamed counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

Complainant Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 have given a detailed account of the occurrence. Their testimony inspires, confidence and they corroborate each other inter se. Atma Ram PW5 is the son of the deceased. Geeta Devi PW6 is the daughter and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 is also the son of the deceased. All the three were injured in the occurrence. Nature of injuries inflicted on these witnesses by the appellants is such that they could not be self-suffered. Anna Ram PW5 was examined by Dr. Saroj Bhakal PW2 on 10.8.2000 at 12.40 a.m. He had a lacerated wound on the right parietal region of the scalp and two other injuries. Geeta Devi PW6 was examined by Dr. Saroj Bhakal at 1 a.m. on the same day. She had injuries on her arms, back, right leg and right knee. Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 was examined on the same day at 2.50 a.m. He had injuries which were bone deep on the right parietal region of the scalp, right shoulder and left ankle. Along with these witnesses Salochna wife of Atma Ram received injuries on the scalp and other parts of the body. Similarly, Jagdish PW received injuries. Birma wife of Het Ram who was also examined by Dr. Saroj Bhakal on 10.8.2000 at 1.30 a.m., also received injuries.

From the nature of injuries, it is clear that Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 were present and had witnessed the occurrence. Atma Ram PW5 has named the appellants. Atma Ram PW5 has stated that on 09.08.2000 he along with other members of his family i.e. Sunder alias Rajinder PW7, Geeta Devi PW6, his wife Salochna, Chachi Birma Devi and his cousin-brother Sehdev were sleeping in the house. At about 10 p.m., they heard shouts coming from the tubewell side which was 1-1/2 acres away. All of them got up and went there and saw the appellants inflicting injuries on the person of .his father Mani Ram. They tried to intervene, but the appellants inflicted injuries on them also i.e. Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7, Salochna and Jagdish. After inflicting injuries on all of them, appellants ran away. Complainant Atma Ram PW5 was examined by Dr. Saroj Bhakal PW5 on i 0.08.2000 at 12.40 a.m. Three injuries were found on his person. Geeta Devi PW6 was examined on the same day at 1 a.m. and five injuries were found on her person. Salochna was examined on the same day at 1.15 a.m. Three injuries were found on her person. Birma Devi was examined on the same day at 1.30 a.m. Injuries were found on her person. On the same day, Jagdish was examined at 2 a.m. and seven injuries were found on his person. Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 was examined on the same day 2,15 a.m. and three injuries were found on his person. Statement of Atma Ram PW5 gets corroboration from the statement of Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7. All the injuries had reached the hospital by 12.30 a.m. on 10.08.2000 and had got themselves medically examined by 2.50 a.m. Complainant Atma Ram''s statement was recorded by ASI Balbir Singh PW14 at Civil Hospital, Adampur and the formal FIR Ex. PM-l came into existence on 10.08.2000 at 4.15 a.m. Special report reached the JMIC, Hissar on the same day at 9 a.m. The distance between Police Station Adampur and Hissar is 20 Kms. By the sequence of events, from the time of occurrence till the special report reached the JMIC, Hissar, it comes out that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. The first and foremost concern of the injured was to get themselves medically examined. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the night on 09.08.2000 at 10 p.m. All the proceedings were done in the night and by 9 a.m. on 10.08.2000 the special report had reached the JMIC, Hissar. The prompt lodging of the FIR is going a long way in proving the guilt of the deceased. As already stated above, the injured eye-witnesses Atma Ram PW5, Geeta Devi PW6 and Sunder alias Rajinder PW7 have corroborated each other inter se and are also corroborated by the medical evidence.

As per the eye-witness account, the appellants eleven in number, armed with Lathis, surrounded Mani Ram deceased and started inflicting injuries on his person. Some of the blows landed on his back, arms and legs, while some did not do so. If all had succeeded in giving injuries, even one injury each, then the number of injuries would have been much more then eight. It was not possible at the moment of time for the eyewitnesses to have seen mechanically the injuries being given on the person of the deceased. But the witnesses have stated that all the appellants gave Lathi blows to the deceased, but when they tried to intervene, they along with Salochna, Birma Devi and Jagdish were also injured. Lathis were recovered from all the appellants. As per the FSL report Ex. PAA and the Serologist''s report Ex. PBB, human blood was found on Lathi Ex. P26 of Ram Sarup and Lathi Ex. PI of Ram Niwas. On rest of the Lathis, blood was disintegrated. This clearly proves that the Lathis recovered were used to inflict injuries. There was no need for the prosecution to produce Jagdish who was also a witness to the occurrence. It would have only added to quantity, and not quality.

The non-naming of Sher Singh in the FIR is not of much help to the defence. Atma Ram PW5 has stated in the FIR Ex. PMl that two sons of Neki Ram were also present. Appellant Sher Singh is no other person than one of the sons of Neki Ram. Similarly, though Ram Niwas was named, but the eye-witnesses have clarified and identified him later on and at the time of trial. Goni Ram was found innocent by the Investigating Agency, but was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and was convicted after the learned trial Court also found that there was ample evidence against him.

Learned Counsel for the appellants have finally argued that Mani Ram was an old man of 68 years. Taking the injuries on his person appellants did not have the intention to commit his murder. At the most an offence u/s 325 IPC is made out against the appellants. There are eight injuries on the person of Mani Ram which are reproduced as under:-

(1) Contusion abrasion 4 inches x 3 inches on right chest lower part with dark reddish clotted blood.

(2) A contusion abrasion over right thigh linear one inch x 8 inches oblique in middle on lateral aspect with reddish dark clotted blood.

(3) A lacerated wound on right lower leg with reddish dark clotted blood on lateral aspect. On dissection of injury Nos.2 and 3, it revealed hemorrhage and clotted blood in thigh and leg compartments with commuted fracture of right femur tibia and fibula.

(4) A contused abrasion right leg in middle on anterior aspect with dark reddish clotted blood.

(5) Two linear contusions 9 inches and 10 inches long, one inch broad, presenting left chest back extending obliquely across mid line dark reddish colour.

(6) A contused abrasion on right forearm on disso lateral aspect in lower l/3rd and upper 2/3d with reddish clotted blood.

(7) Contused abrasion on left leg in middle lateral aspect with dark reddish clotted blood.

(8) A contused abrasion on left elbow 2 inches above elbow joint on lateral aspect with dark reddish clotted blood.

Taking the injuries on the person of Mani Ram into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that appellants did not have the intention to commit the murder of Mani Ram. The fatal injuries on the person of Mani Ram being as per Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW1 are injuries Nos.2 and 3. Injury No. 2 being on the right thigh and injury No. 3 being on the right lower leg.

We cannot overlook this fact that Mani Ram was an old man of 68 years of age and as per Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PWI, his pleura on right side was found fibroses and adherent, his right lung was also fibroses partly. His lungs, pleura and lever were not of a healthy person, meaning thereby that the same were not damaged by the appellants. The bones of the deceased were also brittle as he was an old man.

The judgment relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the appellants in Rattan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (supra) squarely covers the case in hand. In this judgment also, appellants were carrying Lathis. The injuries inflected were on the hands and feet of the deceased which resulted in fractures. The Hon''ble Apex Court held that appellants could not be convicted u/s 302 IPC, but an offence u/s 325 IPC was made out only. In the present case also, the injuries caused to Mani Ram are with blunt weapons on hands and feet. Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW1 has opined that injuries were caused with blunt weapon i.e. Lathi on the hands and legs of the deceased.

Conviction of the appellants is modified from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and all the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for 6 years u/s 325 IPC. Appellants are also convicted u/s 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Appellants are convicted u/s 323 IPC also, read with Section 149 IPC for causing injuries to Atma Ram, Geeta Devi, Rajinder, Birma, Salochna and Jagdish. They are sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

Learned Counsel for the State has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000( 3) RCR 637 (P&H), wherein this Court awarded compensation by stating that punishment alone does not give full justice to the victim who continues to suffer and the Court in exercise of its power u/s 357 Cr. P.C. should impose adequate fine to be paid to the victim.

In the present case also, full justice would not be met for the injuries inflicted on Mani Ram to his near and dear ones if adequate compensation is not awarded to them. Appellants are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,20,000/- to be paid to the sons of Mani Ram. In default of payment of fine, appellants shall further undergo R1 for 2 years.

With the above modification of conviction and sentence, appeal is dismissed.