Ram Tirath vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

By this judgment I will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 396SB of 1987 titled as Ram Tirath and others and Criminal Revision No. 964 of 1987 titled as Balkar Singh v. Ram Tirath and others as the appeal and the revision have arisen from the judgment and order dated 10.6.1987 passed by the court of Sessions Judge Karnal who convicted Sarvshri Rati Ram and Ram Tirath under section 307 IPC and Arjan Ram and Hari Ram under section 307 read with section 307/34 IPC for causing fire arm injury to Balkar Singh and the sentence which was imposed upon the appellants was as follows :

Accused Rati Ram To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

Accused Ram Tirath To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year.

Accused Arjan Ram To undergo rigour imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year.

Accused Hari Ram To be released on probation on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with one surety in the like amount and to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of one year and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon during the said period.

The brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner :

FIR No. 301 dated 7.11.1986 was registered in Police Station Kaithal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. As per allegations of the prosecution Shri Arjan Ram gave a lalkara upon which his coaccused Ram Tirath appellant fired shots from his gun but the shots missed. Then Rati Ram appellant fired three shots from his revolver as a result of which Balkar Singh received three pellet injuries in his legs. On the basis of the said prosecution version, four accused namely Ram Tirath, Rati Ram, Hari Ram and Arjan Ram resident of village Parbhawat were arrested and produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate who vide his order dated 6.2.1987 committed the accused to the court of Sessions.

On appearance the accused were chargesheeted under section 307 IPC on the allegations that on the night of 6.11.1986 in the area of village Kheri Gulam Ali they caused fire arm injuries to Balkar Singh and Jit Singh under such circumstances that if they had caused death of Balkar Singh and Jit Singh they would have been guilty of murder. Resultantly Rati Ram was chargesheeted under Section 307 IPC while his coaccused Ram Tirath, Arjan Ram and Hari Ram were chargesheeted under section 307 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly Ram Tirath was chargesheeted under section 307 IPC and his coaccused Rati Ram, Arjan Ram and Hari Ram were chargesheeted under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Shri Santokh Singh as PW1 who deposed that his field had a common dol with the field of Balkar Singh who is son of his brother. On 11.5.1986 at about 10.30 p.m. Balkar Singh was irrigating his fields and Jit Singh was helping Balkar Singh. He heard three shots of the gun fire as a result he along with Sukhdev Singh reached the spot in the field of Balkar Singh. Balkar Singh and Jit Singh were lying on the ground. It has been further stated that Sarvshri Arjan Ram, Ram Tirath, Rati Ram and Hari Ram was present there. Arjan Ram and Hari Ram were carrying kassis while Ram Tirath and Rati Ram were carrying rifles. It has been further stated by Shri Santokh Singh that he had a torch and in the torch light he identified all the appellants. It has been further stated by Santokh Singh that Balkar Singh had received pellet injuries on his shin and feet. The motive has also been deposed by this witnesses by stating that the accused wanted to forcibly pass the irrigation water through their fields to which they objected to.

Doctor V.K. Gautam (PW2) medically examined Shri Balkar Singh injured and found the following three injuries on his person :

1/2cm x 1/2 cm lacerated wound, muscle deep, margins inverted, present on the lateral aspect of lower part of left leg 11/2 cms above and in front of lateral meleolus of ankle. Advised Xray. Clotted blood was present and it was surrounded by a red swelling.

1/2 cm x 1/2 cm lacerated wound, inverted margins were present on the lower part of right leg antereo medial aspect, 6 cms. above the medial maleolus. Clotted blood was present. Xray was advised.

1/2 cm x 1/2 cm lacerated wound, inverted margins present on the postereo medial aspect of right leg, middle of it and clotted blood was present. Xray was advised.

It has been observed by this Doctor that all the wounds bled on touch. Further it has been stated by Doctor that after seeing the Xray reports, he opined the kind of weapon used was fire arm.

Doctor N.K. Dhawan appeared as PW.3 and he conducted Xray examination on the person of Balkar Singh and found radio opaque shadows in the right leg and also on left ankle of Balkar Singh. Ronak Ram Patwari appeared as PW.4. He simply prepared scaled site plan Ex. PE. The statement of Santokh Singh has been corroborated by statement of Jit Singh (PW.5) who deposed that on 7.11.1986 at about 10/11 p.m. he along with Balkar Singh were irrigating their fields while Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh were working on the kuchha khal when all the four accused came there and they started passing the irrigation water through their fields. It has been further stated that Rati Ram had .12 bore gun while Ram Tirath had a rifle and Arjan Ram and Hari Ram had kassis. Further it has been stated by this witness that Balkar Singh told the accused that he would not allow the water to pass. Further it has been stated by this witness that Arjan Ram exhorted his coaccused to fire and that he would take care. Ram Tirath and Rati Ram fired shots from their respective weapons as a result of which Balkar Singh received injuries on his legs. It has been further stated by this witness that he received injuries on account of three shots. Sukhdev and Santokh Singh on hearing the shots of fire arm raised a lalkara that they were coming upon which the accused ran towards the side of dera. Also it was deposed by the witness that he identified the assailants in the torch light which was held by Balkar Singh who was removed to Civil Hospital Kaithal for medical examination. The motive has also been corroborated by this witness. Balkar Singh appeared as PW.6 and he supported the allegations of the prosecution by stating that he was fired at by the two appellants namely Ram Tirath and Rati Ram. Head Constable Ram Avtar is the officer who partly investigated this case and ASI Beer Singh is the other Investigating Officer who also partly investigated this case and arrested the accused on 10.11.1986. Finally the Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence the affidavits of the formal witnesses besides report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory and closed the case.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused. The accused denied those circumstances and plea of Ram Tirath appellant was that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Arjan Ram came forward and he made the following statement before the Trial Court :

"I am innocent. I and my sons were in physical possession of 3 kanals of land which was a part of killa No. 22/6/2. This was undivided. I was cultivating it much prior to the purchase of remaining 3 kanas of killa No. 22/6/2 by the complainant party. I have been irrigating this field raising crops and have been passing my water through this land to my other land which is situated towards the North of this land. There was no partition and no sub division of khasra had been created either between us or in the revenue record. The complainant party had been pressing us for giving them a passage to the land from our land situated near the road and we were not agreeable to it. This created friction and in order to use it Balkar and Jit Singh on the fateful night had obstructed flow of my water although the khal actually existed there. This led to exchange of hot words and abuses. Some persons also came running to the site. Jit Singh and Balkar Singh attempted to attack me to force me to leave the place and not to take water. Feeling apprehension of danger I raised alarm. There was no other person with me at that time. Ram Tirath accused who heard the alarm while he was coming to our other fields near the road he hearing the commotion just fired one shot with his gun in order to scare away the parties. It appears that three pellets incidentally had hit Balkar Singh. I and my coaccused Ram Tirath had no intention to cause injuries to these people. I have been falsely involved."

Rati Ram simply stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Likewise his coaccused Hari Ram stated that he was falsely implicated.

In defence the accused tendered in evidence the report of the referee in the Civil Suit Rati Ram v. Assa Singh Ex. DA, copy of the Decree sheet Ex. DB in the same suit and copy of the jamabandi Ex. DC and certain documents of the revenue record.

The learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above and feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants, Shri Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate on behalf of the Haryana State, Shri K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

In this case the story of the prosecution is that the accused wanted to pass irrigation water through the field of Balkar Singh which was objected to by him. Further it is stated that Ram Tirath who was allegedly carrying fire arm fired shots but the same missed. Then Rati Rama fired three shots from his weapon hitting on the legs of Balkar Singh and injuries to Jit Singh. So far as the role attributed to Arjan Ram and Hari Ram is concerned it is the story of the prosecution that they were armed with kassis but they did not use that weapon. It is strange that inspite of the fact that Arjan Ram and Hari Ram were armed with kassis and their motive was common with that of Ram Tirath and Rati Ram still they preferred not to cause injuries to any of the injured inspite of the fact that Balkar Singh and Jit Singh were unarmed. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that Arjan Ram is none else but father of Ram Tirath, Rati Ram and Hari Ram. In these circumstances false implication of Arjan Ram and Hari Ram can always be there. It is not believable that Arjan Ram who is an old man of 60 years would be present in the fields at about 10.00 p.m. for the purpose of cultivation and that he would try to forcibly pass water through the fields of Balkar Singh. In these circumstances, I extend the benefit of doubt to Arjan Ram and Hari Ram. Their appeal stands accepted and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

With regard to Ram Tirath and Rati Ram the prosecution stands established beyond reasonable doubt. The injured is the best witness in this case. Balkar Singh and Jit Singh have corroborated the allegations that Ram Tirath fired shots but the same missed. He must have missed the shot because he may be the poor shooter or during night he might have missed the target. Shots of Rati Ram had injured Shri Balkar Singh and Jit Singh, their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. Also there was strong motive on the part of the accused Rati Ram and Ram Tirath who was real brothers inter se and they could forcibly pass the water through the fields of Balkar Singh when they had no right to do so. The trial court had rightly rejected the defence of Ram Tirath and Rati Ram as stated above. In this view of the matter I maintain the conviction of Sarvshri Ram Tirath and Rati Ram.

With regard to the sentence, Shri Ashok Aggarwal and Shri K.G. Chaudhary have stated that a compromise has been effected between the complainant and Ram Tirath and Rati Ram and that the complainant has no objection, if the two appellants may be shown leniency in (sic) learned counsel on the ground that Sarvshri Ram Tirath and Rati Ram had used fire arm and they do not be shown any leniency in the matter of sentence. In this case fire arm has been allegedly used by Ram Tirath and Rati Ram. It was matter of sheer luck that Balkar Singh and Jit Singh had survived. These two appellants in these circumstances do not deserve much sympathy of the court and I decline the request of the learned counsel that undergone sentence may be awarded to Ram Tirath and Rati Ram. However, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if substantive sentence of Rati Ram is reduced to three years from five years and that of Ram Tirath stands reduced to two years from three years. Ram Tirath shall also pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for one year.

Resultantly appeal of Arjan Ram and Hari Ram stands allowed and they stand acquitted while appeal of Rati Ram and Ram Tirath is dismissed except in the modification of sentence.

Revision filed by Balkar Singh also stands dismissed as I have not enhanced the sentence rather the case of Balkar Singh before this court is that he has no objection if Rati Ram and Ram Tirath may be awarded the sentence of already undergone by them. Let intimation of rejection of the appeal of Rati Ram and Ram Tirath be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra.