Rulda vs State of Punjab

N.K. Kapoor, J.

Appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide order dated June 5, 198). Vide impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, or in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. First Information Report lodged by Balwant Singh PW6 reads as :

"I am resident of village Mandauli and do labour. Myself and Shri Bohla Ram are two brothers. We and Surjan Singh son of Bhagwan Singh have taken Shamlat land of the village in order to prepare dung cakes, Our pathwara (place for preparing dung cakes) and that of Surjan Singh adjoins each other. Threefour days ago, my Bharjai (brother''s wife) Swaran Kaur and Charno wife of Pohla Singh son of Surjan Singh had exchanged abuses. Because my Bharjai had checked Charno from placing dungcakes in her Pathwara but we, the male members, did not interfere between the quarrel of the women. Today, my Sala (wife''s brother) Gurbachan Singh resident of village Manakpur had come to see us. It was about 10.30 P.M., we were sitting on the roof of the Kotha. I started giving abuses to my brotherinlaw in joking. On hearing my abuses Surjan Singh''s son Kaka Singh armed with a Dang, Ajaib Ram armed with a Soti and Rulda Ram armed with a Soti sons of Inder Ram, Jhewar by caste, residents ''of our village came in the street in front of our house and started saying, "why are you giving abuses to us." I replied that I was giving abuses to my brotherinlaw in joking. My father Mohinder Singh, who as usual was lying in the Bara (enclosure) meant for tethering the cattle came there on hearing our alarm. In the meantime, I alongwith my Sala (brotherinlaw) Gurbachan Singh also came outside in the street. My father started saying to Kaka etc. as to what for they were quarrelling with one another. Then Kaka gave reply immediately that threefour days ago his Nuh. (daughterinlaw) had given abuses to his Bharjai (brother''s wife) Charno. Now today your son is abusing. (He further exhorted) they would finish the daily dispute. Immediately Kaka and Rulda gave one dang blow each on the head of my father Mohinder Singh whose head was naked. Then I alongwith my Sala (brotherinlaw) and brother Pohla Ram came forwarded in order to rescue my father then Ajaib Singh alias Ajaib Ram gave a dang blow on my left arm and Kaka Singh gave a dang blow on the frontal aspect of the forehead of my brother Pohla Ram. My father fell down on the spot in the street and blood started oozing out of his mouth and cars. He became unconscious. The assailants ran away from there after causing injuries together with their respective weapons. After sometime my father Mohinder Singh died. After leaving my brother Pohla Ram near the dead body of my father Mohinder Singh, I have come to lodge a report in the company of Ram Kishan son of Jangira, Jhewar by caste, resident of village Mandali. The accused persons have committed the murder of my father and caused injuries to us by keeping the grudge in their minds because threefour days ago, my Bharjai and their Bharjai had exchanged abuses. We out of fear have come through uncommon passage while hiding ourselves.'' Action may be taken. Postmortem examination on the deadbody of Mohinder Singh was performed by Dr. Vinod Kumar Singla, Medical Officer. A.P. Jain. Hospital, Rajpura, on September 24, 1987, at 9.40 A.M. Dr. Vinod Kumar SinglaPW2 found the following injuries on the dead body :

A lacerated wound 2.5 cms x 8.5 cm on the frontal region transversely placed almost in the midline at the hairline. The underlying bone was fractured.

A lacerated wound 3 cms x 0.5. cm in the frontal region of scalp just behind and to the left of the left Corner of injury No. 1. The underlying bone was fractured."

The cause of death according to the doctor was head injury which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Dr. I.C. Taneja, Medical Officer, A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura examined Pohla Ram PW7 and found a lacerated wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm on the left parietal region 2 cm above the hair line and I cm away from midline of the scalp. He also medically examined Balwant Singh son of Shri Mohinder Ram on September 25, 1987 and found an abrasion 0.5 cm in diameter in the upper and left scapular region 5 cms below the left clavical and reddish blue bruise 4 cms x 2 cms on the outer side of left forearm.

Inspector Ranjit SinghPW14 visited the spot and found Pohla Ram present by the side of dead body of Mohinder Ram. He prepared inquest report Ex. PE. Dead body was identified by Pohla Ram and Balwant Singh. He lifted blood stained earth from the street in the presence of Hari Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Dev Raj. Blood stained earth was put into a tin dabbi and was scaled with the seal bearing impression `RS''. In pursuance to the disclosure statements of Kaka Singh, Ajaib Singh and Rulda Ram. got recovered dangs/Sotis. Constable Madho Singh produced before Inspector Ranjit Singh one scaled parcel containing Blood stained Kamiz, Parna and Kachha removed by Doctor Vinod Kumar Singla from the dead body of Mohinder Ram at the time of postmortem examination. Tin dabbi containing blood stained earth was sent to the Serologist and Chemical Examiner, who opined vide report Ex. PY that Kamiz and Kachha were stained with human blood. Since the blood had disintegrated on earth, he gave no opinion regarding the origin of blood on earth etc. After investigation, Kaka Singh, Rulda and Ajaib were challaned.

With a view to bring home to the accused the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined Dr. Rajan Soni, Senior Medical Officer. A.P. Jain. Hospital, RajpuraPW1, Dr. Vinod Kumar Singla, Medical Officer, A.P. Jain. Hospital. Rajpura PW9, Amrit Lal, Draftsman PW3. Head Constable Jarnail SinghPW4 Hari SinghPW5. Balwant Singh PW6. Pohla RamPW7. Gurbachan SinghPW8, Dr. I.C. Taneja, Medical Officer, A.P. Jain Hospital, RajpuraPW9, Smt. Swaran KaurPW10, Kaka Singh son of Shri Sohan SinghPW1 1, Randhir SinghPW12, Assistant Sub Inspector Dev Raj PW13. Inspector Ranjit Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpura PW14 and Constable Gurbux Singh PW15. Besides, affidavits Exs. PK/A, PL/A and PM/A of Moharrir Head Constable Pritam Singh, Constable Bali Ram and Constable Madho Singh were tendered into evidence. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PC and report of Serologist Ex. PY were tendered into evidence.

Accused, when examined under Section 113 of the Criminal Proce dure Code, denied the imputations appearing in prosecution evidence against them and stated that it is a false case,'' I They examined Dewan K.S. Puri, Document Expert, Patiala in their defence.

Learned Counsel has assailed the prosecution version on the ground that the First Information Report was lodged on September 24, 1987 at 3.5 A.M. by Balwant PW; whereas the occurrence is alleged to have taken place around 10.30 P.M. on September 23, 1967 and the distance between the place of occurrence the Police Station Rajpura is merely 12 Kilometres. Even the special report is purported to have reached the Magistrate at 5.20 A.M. on September 24, 1987. The delay in lodging the First Information Report is in itself, no ground to discard the prosecution version, if otherwise found more convincing. In the present case, the incident was so sudden that other members of the family were taken unaware and they took sometime to compose and this is how this short delay in approach the investigating agency is explained The other evidence does not in any manner suggest that the accused has been falsely implicated. Thus we find no merit in this objection of the counsel.

Eyewitness account has been given by Balwant Singh PW6 Pohla Ram PW7, Gurbachan Singh PW8 and Smt. Swaran Kaur PW10. According to these witnesses appellant caused only one injury to the deceased with a Sotti.

We have perused the statement of these witnesses. They are in fact consistent that one Soti blow was inflicted by the appellant to Mohinder Ram m. Also keeping in view that parties are related, had no previous enmity, small altercation had taken place a few days before the occurrence between Smt. Swaran Kaur and Charno (both sisters), the whole unfortunate happening took place at the spur of moment and the heat of passion it would imply that the accused had no intention to cause blow which claimed the life of Mohinder Ram.

The `intention'' and `knowledge'' of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances, such as the weapon used, the ferocity of Attack, multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances. Knowledge is bare awareness and not the same thing as intention that such consequences should ensue. As compared to `knowledge'', ''intention'' requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequence, namely the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.

On the facts which have been proved on record the intention to kill Mohinder Ram certainly cannot be attributed to the appellant. At best, he can be said to have knowledge that his act may ultimately cause death. This way appellant cannot be held guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The elements specified under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code are wanting in the present case. Keeping in view The fact that only one injury is proved to have been caused to the deceased and that too at the spur of moment, we are of the opinion that a lessor punishment will meet the ends of justice. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as Charmru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 652 held as under :

"When the fatal injury was inflicted by the appellant on the head of the decased by only one blow given in the manner alleged by the prosecution it could as well be that the act by which death was caused was not done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The act appears to have been done with the knowledge that it was "likely to" use death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death within the meaning of Part 11 of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code."

We accordingly set a side the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of, the Indian Penal Code and convict him under S. 304 PartII of the Indian Penal Code and. sentence him to five years rigorous imprisonment and, a fine of Rs. 500/ In default of payment of fine the appellant would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Sentence awarded by the trial Court under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code shall remain intact. However, substantive sentence shall run concurrently. With the modification indicated above, the appeal stands disposed of.