Suraj Bhan vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

This order will also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 15DB of 1989.

Suraj Bhan, Pappu alias Dharam Bir, Laxmi Chand, Ishwar, Partap and Amar Singh were tried and convicted under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 144 IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide his order dated November 17, 1988. All the six accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Fine, if recovered was ordered to be given to Smt. Guddi and her son.

Feeling aggrieved, Suraj Bhan, Laxmi Chand, Ishwar and Partap have filed Criminal Appeal No. 691 DB of 1988 and Dharam Bir and Amar Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 15DB of 1989.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that Guddi widow of Duli Chand deceased made her statement to ASI Mohar Singh at General Hospital, Bhiwani on May 6, 1987 stating therein that she was married by her father with Duli Chand son of Surja, resident of Hanuman Gate, Bhiwani about three years ago. A son was born to her from the loins of her husband wife and her husband were engaged in the pursuit of moulding bricks at a brickkiln. On the occasion of "Dussehra", she and her husband moulded bricks on the brickkiln of Pawan Sharma at the rate of Rs. 30/ per thousand. They resided in the hut., on the brickkiln with other brick moulders. Her son Sandeep had suffered from chickenpox. On the recovery of her son from chickenpox, she had propitiated Mata Goddess by offering Parsad on May 5 1987 at about 1.00 P. M which she had distributed among the persons known to her residing in the huts. She passed in front of the buts of Partap son of Pehlad and Suraj Bhan son of Pehlad residents of Roda to distribute "Parsad". When she came back. Indawati and Sheela wives of Partap and Suraj Bhan respectively told her that if she passed before their buts to perform some Toona Totaka, they would cut her legs. She replied that she merely passed by that side and had not removed the earth with her feet. On this, they both started abusing her. They also quarrelled. Then Shantu Zamadar came and got the matter compromised.

In the evening at about 600/630 P.M. Rohtas, the younger brother of her husband and Dharampal the husband of the sister of her husband came to the hut on hearing about the quarrel. Her husband was also sitting with them. On seeing her, wives of Partap and Suraj Bhan again started abusing her. Her husband Duli Chand told Partap and Suraj Bhan that their wives were abusing and that they should persuade their wives. Upon this, Pappu alias Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan armed with, "Kassis", Chand, Ishwar Partap and Amar Singh having brick bats in their hands, came forward to kill them and started throwing brickbats towards them. To save their lives, they ran towards the brickkiln from the back side of their hut. The accused chased them. Partap caught hold of her husband. When her "Dewar" Roshtas tried to rescue her husband, Ishwar and Amar Singh threw brick bats towards Rohtas which hit him on the right side of his forehead and he fell down. Pappu and Suraj Bhan gave "Kassi" blows from the blunt side on the head of her husband Duli Chand. Duli Chand on receipt of injuries fell down. She and Dharam Pal raised noise. She and Rohtas took Duli Chand to the hospital. Her husband expired in the hospital due to the injuries.

ASI Mohar Singh made his endorsement on the statement and sent the same to the Police Station for the registration of a case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PN/2 was recorded at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani. ASI Mohar Singh prepared inquest report Ex. PM and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He conducted, the investigation in the case.

After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWI Dr. B.S. Nain, who medicolegally examined Duli Chand on May 5, 1987 at 8.40 P.M. and had found the following injuries on his person :

A lacerated wound size 11/2 x 1/2 em. x skin deep on right frontal region. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

A lacerated wound 31/4 x 1/2 em. on right occipital region muscle deep. Fresh bleeding was present. Xray was advised.

According to the doctor, he kept the injuries under observation The probable duration of the injuries was within six hours. He further opined that the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.

On the same day at 7.45 P.M., he medicolegally examined Rohtas and had found the following injury

"A lacerated wound 2 x 1/4 em. on right frontal region. It was skin deep. Fresh bleeding was present

The injury Was simple in nature and was caused by a blunt weapon. The probable duration was within six hours.

PW4 Dr. G. P. Saluja conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Duli Chand on May 6, 1987 at 11.20 A.M. and had found the following injuries :

Stitched wound on the right side of head 6 em. from middle and 6 cm. behind the eye brows. It was 11/2 cm. long.

Stitched wound 31/4 em. on the right side of bead in the occipital region just right to the midline and 22 cm. behind the eyebrows.

Stitched wound 3 cm. on the right side of occipital region, 3 em. outer to injury No. 3 and 10 centimetre behind the right car.

Inverted `L'' shaped wound longer arm being 3 em. long and shorter being 1 cm. long, stitched over the parietal region in the middle and left side 2 cm. in front of injury No. 2.

On the exploration, all these injuries revealed infiltration of blood in the scalp and sub cutaneous tissue. Further exploration revealed fracture of both temporal bones and the parietal bones. The fracture line was over the parietal eminence and 7 cms behind the front to parietal suture and extending on to the temporal bones, on both the sides. Still further there was subdural and extradual haematoma. There was also laceration of superior sagittal sinus. The subdural haematoma was more in amount in the occipital and posteriorcranial fossa.

3112 em. abrasion with bright red scab on the back of right side 7 cms. from middle and 7 cms. below the collar area.

Abrasion 1 cm. with bright red scab on the back right side 14 cm. from midline and 5 cms. from the collar area.

Contusion reddish in colour 6 x 2 cms. on the left side of back, 11 cms. from midline and 11 cms. from collar area.

Abrasion with bright red scab on the left lumber region. 11 cms. from midline and was 4 x 2 cms. in size

Reddish contusion 3 x 2 cms. on the back of left arm 12 cms. from the shoulder joint.

Abrasion with bright red scab on the outer side of left arm, 6 cms. below the elbow joint.

Injuries No. 5 to 10 on exploration showed infiltration of blood in the sub cutaneous tissue.

In this opinion, the cause of death in this case was head injury as a result of injuries No. 1 to 4 and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of time. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within six hours and between death and postmortem it was within 24 hours.

PW2 H. C. Jai Narain had partly investigated this case.

PW3 Rai Kumar Patwari had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PG.

PW5 Guddi and PW 6 Rohtas are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case in every detail and stated that in their presence Pappu alias Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan accusedappellants had caused injuries to Duli Chand deceased resulting in his death. Rohtas father stated that Ishwar and Amar Singh threw brickbats towards him which hit on the right side of his forehead.

PW7 ASI Mohar Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of the investigation conducted by him.

After the close of prosecution case, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the prosecution allegations and have pleaded innocence, Amar Singh accused his taken the following stand :

"I am innocent. My name and that of my son Dharam Bir were mentioned in this case at the instance of Santu Jamadar with whom I have strained relations and Santu is related to the deceased Duli Chand sustained injuries as a result of fall of his hut and taking advantage of the said injuries, we were falsely implicated on account of enmity".

In their defence, DW1 Jeet Singh was examined who stated that he used to do Chowkidara at the brickkiln of Pawan Kumar in the revenue estate of Moth. He used to give eight hours duty in a day. There were four Chowkidars who used to work on shift arrangement. On May 5, 1987 he was on duty from 600 A.M. to 12.00 noon and then from 800 P.M. to 1 00 A.M. at night. He did not come to know of any dispute between the labourers on 551987. However, there was some dispute near the bricklin but he did not witness the same. He know Duli Chand and many other labourers who used to work there. He did not see the police at the brickkiln because he was entirely concerned with this own job. None of the accused was arrested in his presence. Police and Patwari did not visit the brickkiln.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, with their help.

Admittedly, there was no previous enmity between the parties and they are neighbours. The incident is the result of suspicion of the ladies of the accused side as to the intention of Guddi PW and in the heat of moment, Pappu alias Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan accused had given one blow each on the head of the deceased. The blow was not repeated and none of the other accused had caused any other injury to the deceased. In the circumstances of the case, Pappu alias Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan are guilty under Section 304 Part I, IPC and the other appellants are not liable for their action. Consequently these appeals are partly allowed. All the accused are acquitted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC but Pappu alias Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan are convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC and are sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each. The sentence of fine awarded to both the accused with its default clause is maintained. Dharam Bir and Suraj Bhan are, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The other accused namely Laxmi Chand, Ishwar, Partap and Amar Singh are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

JUDGMENT accordingly.