Ram Singh vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present appeal has been filed by Ram Singh son of Khamba Ram. He is aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 11.8.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, who held him guilty for the offence u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

The prosecution version has been divulged by PW.11 Vidya Dhar in his statement Ex.PG made to PW.13 Shish Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector. The occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 30.10.1997 at about 10.00 P.M. It was a Diwali night. The statement of PW.11 Vidya Dhar was recorded in village Gehli on the intervening night of 30.10.1997 and 31.10.1997 at about 4.30 A.M. PW.11 Vidya Dhar, in his statement, stated that Appellant Ram Singh, who was working as a Driver on the truck bearing registration No. HR-19-0385, owned by his brother-in-law. For operating the truck, Appellant Ram Singh intended to purchase its tyres. PW.7 Sanjay, son of the complainant, had arranged three tyres from his known person of Naseebpur, on loan, for Appellant Ram Singh. The total cost of the tyres was Rs. 29,000, out of which the Appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 12,000 at the time of purchase thereof. The remaining amount of Rs. 17,000 was agreed to be paid by the Appellant on Diwali. On the night of Diwali, PW.7 Sanjay demanded the amount of Rs. 17,000 from the Appellant. At that time, PW.10 Udey Vir Singh and PW.12 Sumer Singh were also present at the spot. The Appellant was unable to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 17,000. Then an altercation took place between the Appellant and PW.7 Sanjay. Thereafter, the Appellant became enraged and hit Sanjay with the truck. The Appellant had reversed the truck and had crossed the same over the legs of PW.7 Sanjay. Sanjay, PW.7, who was lying under the truck, was extricated and taken to the hospital. He was examined by PW.5 Dr. Ajay Mann, who found the following injuries on the person PW.7 Sanjay:

Deformity right mid thigh with abnormal mobility present. There was swelling all around the right thigh. The injury was kept under observation and the patient was advised X-ray of the same.

2) Deformity right leg near junction of lower 1/3rd and upper 2/3rd. 5Cm x 1.5 cm bone deep laceration on anterior lateral aspect of the part. Bleeding was present. The injury was kept under observation and patient was advised X-ray of the same.

3) There was 20cm x 10 cm long reddish abrasion on the lateral aspect of left thigh, lower half and knee. He was complaining of pain in that part. Injury was kept under observation."

The trial Court relied upon the testimonies of PW.7 Sanjay, PW.10 Udey Vir Singh, PW.11 Vidya Dhar and PW.12 Sumer Singh to hold that non payment of the loan and demand of money by PW.7 Sanjay was the main cause and motive to run over the truck on the injured.

Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, submits that the story of the motive and the demand of loan amount is a made up affair. Infact, it is a case of accident. To prove this fact, Mr. Sanghi has relied upon Ex.PC-Medicolegal Report of PW.7 Sanjay wherein the doctor has recorded that the injured gave the history of road accident. Mr. Sanghi has further referred to the testimony of PW.5 Dr. Ajay Mann, who, in his cross-examination, stated as under:

... It is correct that in the MLR Ex.PC, the history given by the patient/attendant was that of road accident in village Gehli. The patient was conscious when medicolegally examined by him...

Mr. Sanghi submits that when the patient was examined by the doctor at about 11.30 P.M. on 30.10.1997, the only version available with the complainant was that it is a case of road accident. It is further submitted that lateron at about 4.30 A.M., in the village, PW.11 Vidya Dhar, father of PW.7 Sanjay, in consultation and deliberation with the Investigating Officer, gave a false version of demand of loan amount and projected the same as a motive of the incident. Mr. Sanghi further urges that the immediate spontaneous version should be preferred than the subsequent version given by PW.11 Vidya Dhar, father of PW.7 Sanjay.

At first instance, this argument looks attractive and this Court intends to give credence to the same, but at the same time, this Court cannot ignore the testimonies of PW.10 Udey Vir Singh and PW.12 Sumer Singh, who are the independent witnesses. They have no animus against the Appellant. They stated in categoric terms that PW.7 Sanjay had demanded money from the Appellant and thereafter an altercation took place. PW.7 Sanjay was standing along with them when the Appellant took away his truck at some distance and after reversing the same, ran it over the body of Sanjay. These witnesses further stated that after the injuries were caused, the Appellant immediately drove the truck further and again reversed and crushed the legs of PW.7 Sanjay. PW.12 Sumer Singh stated that the money was demanded by PW.7 Sanjay on which the Appellant was enraged and had caused the injuries with the truck. PW.10 Udey Vir Singh stated in his cross-examination that both the injured and the Appellant belong to the same caste. He further stated that he has nowhere stated that he is related to PW.7 Sanjay. The testimonies of PW.10 Udey Vir Singh and PW.12 Sumer Singh aspire confidence.

Once this Court comes to a conclusion that immediately before the occurrence, the money was demanded by PW.7 Sanjay, thereafter an altercation had taken place and the Appellant, being enraged, had caused injuries, then, it will be difficult for the Court to record a finding that it was a pure and simple case of accident. Thus, the finding returned by the trial Court that the Appellant is guilty of an offence u/s 307 IPC, is affirmed. Having held the Appellant guilty for the offence u/s 307 IPC, this Court has to ponder over the quantum of sentence.

The occurrence, in the present case, took place in the year 1997. A period of about more than 13 years is going to elapse. The Appellant has suffered the agony and pain of protracted trial. PW.7 Sanjay had suffered fracture of pelvis bone. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that PW.7 Sanjay, injured, can be compensated in monetary terms.

Considering the fact that the occurrence is about more than 13 years old; the Appellant has suffered the agony and pain of protracted trial; and after the incident, no other occurrence has taken place between the parties and the Appellant is ready to compensate PW.7 Sanjay, injured, this Court is of the view that taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence, awarded upon the Appellant, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, is reduced to that of two and a half years and he is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000. The fine, so awarded, shall be paid to PW.7 Sanjay, injured. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months.

With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed of.