Rati Ram vs State of Haryana

S.C. Datta, J.

The appellantRati Ram son of Udey Chand resident of Bado Patti was tried, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Sections 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was ordered that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

The case was started on the complaint of Mange Ram son of Prabhu Ram resident of village Bado Patti. The complaint was made to the police at the Bus Stand, Sarsod. Briefly stated, the fact of the case is as follows.

The informant Mange Ram runs a shop under the name & style of "Goori Tyre Sole" in Auto Market, Hisar and he has been residing on the first floor of his shop for the last ten years. the deceased Prabhu Ram was his father. Prabhu Ram had four brothers viz. Kurra Ram, Ram Dutta, Ram Lal and Udey Chand. Kurra Ram was the eldest and he is dead. All the brothers resided in the village separately. Prabhu Ram resided in the village to look after cultivation.

On 28.12.1990, at about 12.00 noon, the complainant went out to their field alongwith his father for a around. While going round the fields, they got separated and he reached near the grapes orchard while his father went towards wheat crop field adjoining Sarson field. Ram Lal and Ram Dutt, the uncles of the informant were sitting on the metalled road adjoining their wheat crop field and were gossiping. Suddenly, at about 3.00 p.m., the informant heard sound of fire shot coming from the wheat crop field and on hearing the sound, he reached towards that field and so also his uncles Ram Lal and Ram Dutt. As they approached towards this wheat crop field, Rati Ram son of Udey Chand fired a shot from his pistol towards his father Prabhu Ram, from a short range. Out of fear, Prabhu Ram started running and entered the kotha of the field to save himself. Rati Ram followed him to the kotha and in the kotha, he fired another shot from his pistol from a short range at his father Prabhu Ram. Out of fear, Mange Ram and his uncles did not go near the place of occurrence but watched it from a distance. Rati Ram ran away from the spot with his pistol. After he left, all of them entered the kotha and found Prabhu Ram dead. The face of Prabhu Ram was besmeared with blood. They did not try to apprehend Rati Ram out of fear.

According to the prosecution, Udey Chand, one of the uncles of the informant Mange Ram, has three sons viz. Rati Ram, Saheb Ram and Chandi Ram. The youngest son, namely, Chandi Ram lives at Bikaner (Rajasthan) while Rati Ram and Saheb Ram reside separately at Tibba Dana Sher, Hisar. The wife of Udey Chand and Rati Ram have strained relations with the uncle of the informant viz. Udey Chand for the last ten years over property affairs. Udey Chand, being fed up with his wife and children sold away his landed property and deposited the sale proceeds in the bank in his own name. He lives alone in the village. About three months back, Rati Ram came to the village, Bado Patti and threatened Prabhu Ram on suspicion that he was instrumental in getting the land sold by his father Udey Chand. At that time. Rati Ram held out a threat that he would teach Prabhu Ram a lesson for the same. The informant believed that Rati Ram had committed the murder of his father Prabhu Ram because of this grudge.

On the basis of this complaint, a formal FIR was registered with the police station and investigation started. During investigation, the police recovered three empty cartridges from the place of occurrence under a seizure memo. The accused was arrested on 3.1.1991 and at the time of his arrest one pistol of 12 bore and two live cartridges were also recovered from the accused.

The appellant faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, on a charge under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused Rati Ram guilty of both the charges and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has moved this Court in appeal.

The prosecution case as set out in the F.I.R. is that the informant Mange Ram and his father Prabhu Ram, deceased, had gone to their field on 28.12.1950 at about noon after taking meal, for a round. On reaching the field, the informant and his father got separated. His father, namely, Prabhu Ram went towards the wheat crop field adjoining the Sarson field, while the informant roamed in the grapes orchard. The younger brothers of the deceased Prabhu Ram, namely, Ram Lal and Ram Dutt were gossiping by sitting on the metalled road adjoining their wheat crop field. Suddenly, at about 3.00 p.m. they heard report of fire shot coming from the wheat crop field and being attracted by the sound, the informant alongwith his uncles ran from the road side towards the wheat field. As they approached the wheat field, they noticed Rati Ram accused firing shot from his pistol at Prabhu Ram deceased from a short range. Out of fear, Prabhu Ram started running and he entered the kotha of the field to save himself. Accused Rati Ram followed him to the kotha and in the kotha itself, he fired another shot from his pistol from a short range at the deceased Prabhu Ram. Out of fear, the informant and his two uncles did not go near the place of occurrence, but kept on watching the occurrence from a distance. After Rati Ram left the place with his pistol, they entered the kotha and saw Prabhu Ram dead. The dead body of Prabhu Ram was sent for post mortem examination after the inquest was done.

Dr. C.R. Garg, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hisar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Prabhu Ram on 29.12.1990 on the request of the police. According to the Autopsy Surgeon, rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. He found the following injuries:

"1. There was lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm skin deep in middle of the skull in occipital region. Direction was longitudinal.

There was lacerated wound 2 inches x 2 inches and 3 inches in depth on the left side of the face. It was one inch distance to the left eye and 1.5 inch above the left year. Clotted blood was present at the base of the wound.

There was lacerated wound .5 cm x .5 cm skin deep on the right leg anteriorly below the knee joint. Coagulated blood was present.

On dissection of injury No. 1, there was petechial haemorrhagic spots present underneath the tissue.

On dissection of injury No. 2, there was fracture of temporal left side and left maxillary bone and some portion of these bones were missing. Brain membrane and matter had been crushed and some amount of blood was present in the skull cavity. Examined the brain matter carefully and there were 27 pieces of pellets found embedded in the brain matter. Wads pieces were also found in the brain matter.

On dissection of injury No. 3, I found there were petichial haemorrhagic spots underneath.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased Prabhu Ram was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries which were caused by firearm weapon. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. During crossexamination, the Autopsy Surgeon (PW7) states that he did not notice any pellets embedded in loose tissues under injury No. 1 and injury No. 3. He did not rule out the possibility that injury No. 1 and injury No. 3 could be the cause of the any weapon other than the firearm as there were no pellets nor blacking or tattooing. He denied the suggestion that injury No. 2 is a disabling injury. According to him, injury No. 2 must have resulted in instantaneous death of the deceased Prabhu Ram. According to him, the blackening range is upto 12 feet and injury No. 2 was beyond that range. During crossexamination, it has been elicited from him that death could have taken place in the morning of 28.12.1990 as well. During reexamination by the Public Prosecutor, the doctor says that injury Nos. 1 and 3 can also be the result of some blunt weapon. During further crossexamination by the learned defence counsel, he says that injury Nos. 1 and 3 being skin deep were superficial injuries. He is of the view that injury No. 1 on the person of the deceased could be the result of a fall on the hard object. So also injury No. 3. In view of the findings of the doctor, it can safely be concluded that injury Nos. 1 and 3 were not the result of firing by a firearm. It is patently clear that injury No. 2 is the result of a shot from a firearm.

The informant Mange Ram is the only son of the deceased Prabhu Ram. He claims that he had witnessed the incident from a distance after the first shot was fired allegedly by the accused at his father Prabhu Ram. According to him, Ram Lal and Ram Dutt were attracted by the sound of first fire shot and they all together rushed towards the wheat crop field wherefrom the sound of fire shot came. Admittedly, therefore, none of these persons had noticed the first shot of firing. The informant (PW 8) and Ram Dutt (PW 9) claim that they had seen the second and third shots aimed at the deceased Prabhu Ram. According to their testimony, the second shot was given to Prabhu Ram while the latter was fleeing towards the kotha and the third shot was given inside the kotha. In the FIR, the informant did not say which of the shots hit which part of the body of his father Prabhu Ram. During trial, he has, of course, said that Rati Ram accused fired pistol shot on the left side of temple of his father and as a result of which his father Prabhu Ram fell down. Ram Dutt (PW 9) says that he had witnessed Rati Ram firing another shot from a pistol while chasing Prabhu Ram towards the kotha. He tells further that Rati Ram fired third shot through his pistol near the temple of Prabhu Ram. He admits that due to fear, they did not go near Prabhu Ram. It is in the evidence of Ram Dutt (PW 9) that they did not raise any hue and cry while noticing the accused opening fire not once but twice towards Prabhu Ram. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that had the informant (PW 8) or Ram Dutt (PW 9) noticed the incident of firing at Prabhu Ram then the informant would have told in the FIR the part or parts of body which were hit by the shots. In our view, it is to be reckoned with. We find that the statement of Ram Dutt was taken by the police officer during inquest. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the concluding portion of statement of Ram Dutt in the inquest report. In the said statement, Ram Dutt (PW 9) is purported to have given the parts of body which were hit by the fire shots. It appears that there has been subsequent insertion of this statement in the inquest report. The defence has examined doctor Gulshan Rai, Senior Scientific Officer, Documents, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban (DW 1) to prove that the concluding paragraph of the purported statement of Ram Dutt (PW 9) during inquest was subsequently incorporated by the police officer to make it consistent with the injuries sustained by the deceased Prabhu Ram. The interpolation is so clear that it could be detected even by naked eye and it does not require any expertise. Even then, we find that the expert (DW 1) has categorically stated that the portion marked ''A'' to ''A'' Ex. PH has been inserted lateron. The prosecution in its eagerness to bolster up the case and to make the story of three fire shots in succession to be consistent with the injuries noticed on the body of the deceased has gone to the length of making insertion in the statement of Ram Dutt (PW 9). Ram Dutt (PW 9) admits during crossexamination that he has not made this statement before the police officer holding the inquest. On an analysis of the evidence, it would be crystal clear that there is attempt on the part of the prosecution to make improvement of the case in the FIR. Therefore, the evidence of socalled witnesses has to be accepted with a pinch of salt.

As regards the third shot which was allegedly given to the deceased Prabhu Ram inside the kotha, we find from the evidence of socalled eyewitnesses, namely, PW 8 and PW 9 that none of them was present inside the kotha. They claim they had noticed the incident from a safe distance because of fear of accused Rati Ram. We do not see them raising any hue and cry when they see Prabhu Ram, deceased being shot at from a close range. We find from the site plan as also from the evidence of the plan maker (PW 2) that there is only one gate in the kotha and it opens towards the north. We also find from the evidence of PW 2 that there is covered verandah in front of that gate and there is no other opening in the said kotha. Mange Ram (PW 8) says during trial that he had noticed the incident while standing on the southern side of the kotha. Ram Dutt (PW 9) says that he had seen the incident while standing on the road in front of the kotha. It is apparent from the site plan as well as from the evidence of the witnesses that nothing was visible from the southern side of the Kotha or from the road on the north. In the circumstances, the conclusion seems irresistible that none of the socalled eye witnesses has seen the incident. They have proved themselves unworthy of credence.

The learned counsel for the appellant argues that this is a case of blind murder and the witnesses brought by the prosecution have proved themselves wholly unreliable. The informant, Mange Ram is a resident of Hisar. He runs a business there and he stays in the upstairs of his shopfor the last ten years. It is not known why he had come to the village only on the day of incident. The learned counsel for the appellant suggests that Mange Ram was later summoned to inform the police over the murder of his father which was caused by some unknown assailants. He argues that the entire case was engineered by Ram Dutt (PW 9) to fit fat the grudge against the appellant Rati Ram. It has come out from the evidence that Ram Dutt (PW 9) was inimically disposed towards Rati Ram. Several criminal cases were fought in the past. It is, therefore, likely that Ram Dutt has got the case instituted against Rati Ram, the present appellant, in connivance with the police officer. We have already indicated how eager the police officer was since the start of inquest proceedings.

It has been alleged by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant suspected involvement of the deceased Prabhu Ram over the sale of property by his father Udey Chand. It is hard to believe that the appellant murdered Prabhu Ram merely on suspicion that the latter was instrumental in the matter of disposal of property of his father. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the case to the hilt. In our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly in error in convicting the accused. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and we order accordingly. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the orders of conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.