Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Bhaj And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 10 March, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-248-DB-2005
Date of Decision: 10.03.2025
RAM BHAJ & OTHERS
... Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CRA-263-DB-2005
SANJAY & ANOTHER
... Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae with
Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocate and
Mr. Sanskar Dhanda, Advocate
for the appellant Nos.2 and 3 in CRA-D-248-DB-2005.
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
for the appellant No.1 in CRA-D-248-2005.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for appellants in CRA-263-DB-2005.
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing No.CRA-D-248-
DB-2005 titled as Ram Bhaj & others versus State of Haryana and CRA-263-
DB-2005 titled as Sanjay & Another Versus State of Haryana as the same are
1 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:36 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -2-
arising out of the same FIR. However, for the sake of convenience the facts
have been taken from CRA-D-248-DB-2005.
2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2005 passed by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
3. Sanjay (appellant in CRA-D-263-DB-2005) has passed away and
therefore, the proceedings qua him stand abated.
4. The FIR was registered on 06.03.2004, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak
is dated 02.03.2005, the appeals were filed on 04.04.2005/21.03.2005 and the
matter is being taken up for hearing now i.e. after a period of more than 20 ½
years from the date of registration of the FIR.
5. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.03.2004, at
about 9.00 a.m a V.T. Message Ex.P31 was received at Police Post, Kansala,
regarding admission of injured Tale Ram, resident of village Pakasma (since
deceased), whereupon Incharge HC Ranbir Singh PW 14 reached PGI MS,
Rohtak and collected the medical ruqa Ex.P5, sent by the doctor at 8.50 a.m.,
and also a copy of MLR Ex.P34 of injured Tale Ram. On application Ex.P31
of HC Ranbir Singh, the attending doctor declared Tale Ram as unfit for
statement. Om Singh PW4, son of Tale Ram, was found present there, who at
4.30 p.m., got his statement Ex.P7 recorded to the effect that on the previous
day dated 05.03.2004, there was some altercation in between the sons of his
brother Mohinder and sons of accused Jage Ram, but they were separated. On
2 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -3-
that day i.e. 06.03.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., when he (Om Singh) was coming
towards his house after tethering his buffaloes in the plot then when he
reached in front of his house, all the accused persons came, encircled him and
stated that they would teach him a lesson for the incident of the previous day.
Saying so, accused Kanwar Lal, took him in his grip. Accused Rambhaj @
Bittu gave him a jelly blow on his right flank. Accused Shree, gave him a
jelly blow on his left flank and accused Sanjay gave him a lathi blow on the
left eye lid. Meanwhile, his father Tale Ram (since deceased) who was inside
the house asked as to what was going on outside whereupon accused Rajesh,
Surat Singh, Dalpat @ Kasu and Jage Ram, with an intention to kill him
entered his house. Accused Rajesh gave a lathi blow to Tale Ram on the left
side of the head, accused Dalpat @ Kasu gave a push to Tale Ram, accused
Surat Singh gave a lathi blow on his face, just below his right eye whereas
accused Jage Ram gave a lathi blow on his left hand elbow. Receiving these
injuries, Tale Ram fell down and become unconscious and serious. They
raised an alarm of “Maar Diya”, hearing which, his younger brother Ram
Niwas (since given-up as unnecessary) and Raj Singh (PW5) reached there.
Seeing them there, all the eight accused persons, ran away with their
respective weapons, but while going away, they threatened that on that day
they (complainant party) were saved, but in case they (complainant party)
tried to quarrel with them (accused party), they would be killed. After
arranging a vehicle, he brought his father Tale Ram to the hospital.
3 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -4-
6. HC Ranbir Singh PW14, sent the aforesaid report Ex. P7 to the
Police Station, with his endorsement Ex.P7/C thereon and on its basis, formal
FIR Ex.P7/A was registered by ASI Shri Kishan PW3 for offences punishable
under sections 307, 323, 506, 452, 148 read with section 149 of IPC.
7. Dr. Ravinder Sahu PW15 at 8.30 p.m., medico-legally examined
injured Tale Ram at 08.30 PM and in the MLR Ex.P34 noted that he was
semi-conscious, disoriented, his pupils were bilaterally dilated and pulse rate
was 78 per minute. The doctor noted the following injury on his person:-
i) There was lacerated wound of size 7cmx.5cm.xsuperficial
deep situated over the left parieto-temporal region, with fresh
bleeding. Patient was advised for surgeon’s opinion and
management. Patient was advised for surgeon opinion and
management, plus any other injury detected during
management and treatment.
The nature of the injury was kept under observation. It was
caused by a blunt weapon. After medical examination, the doctor sent medical
ruqa Ex.P5 at 8.50 p.m., informing the police regarding his admission in the
hospital.
8. Complainant/Om Singh PW4 was having some injuries on his
person, received in the occurrence, so HC Ranbir Singh, sent him for his
medial examination with HC Ramphal. Dr.Mukesh Chand PW13 medically
examined Om Singh and in the MLR Ex.P28, noted the following injuries on
his person:-
i) Reddish contusion 4×2.3cm., on left upper lid, pupils were
B/L normally reacting normally to light.
4 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -5-
No complaint in vision was found. Adv. Opthealmiel/Eye
surgeon opinion.
ii) Lacerated wound .3x.3cm., on left lower chest posterior
aspect, posterior to axillary fold. Depth not assessed.
Referred to GH, Rohtak for further treatment. Adv. Surgeon’s
opinion.
iii) Lacerated wound .4cm x .2cm. On right side of abdomen
superolateral to anterior axillary fold. Adv. Surgeon’s
opinion.
All the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. The nature of the
injuries was kept under observation. Duration of the injuries tallied with the
time of the occurrence.
9. HC Ranbir Singh (PW14) along with HC Ramphal, then reached
the place of occurrence and lifted the blood stained ‘Gudad’, which was taken
into police possession, in a sealed parcel, with seal “T.R’., vide recovery
memo Ex.P11, attested by Mahinder Singh PW9. HC Ranbir Singh also
prepared rough site plan Ex.P33, showing the place of occurrence. On return
to the Police Station, the said sealed parcel was deposited with MHC Ram
Parkash PW6. Later on, it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Madhuban, through Constable Karambir (PW7). Subsequently, the FSL report
Ex.P10 was received, detecting human blood thereon. Thereafter,
investigations of the case were taken over by ASI/Incharge Police Post,
Virender Singh PW12.
10. Injured Tale Ram succumbed to his injuries at 3.45 a.m., on the
same night. The attending doctor, sent a medical ruqa Ex.P4 at 4.15 p.m.,
5 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -6-
informing the police, regarding the death of Tale Ram. V.T. Message Ex.P20
in this regard was also received in the Police Station, on the basis of which,
offence punishable under section 302 of IPC was added.
11. ASI/Incharge Police Post Virender Singh PW12 reached PGIMS,
Rohtak. He prepared the inquest report Ex.P3 and sent the dead body for post
mortem examination with police application Ex.P1. Dr.S.P.S.Bhatia PWI
conducted the post mortem examination and in the post mortem report Ex.P2
noted the following injuries:-
i) Stitched wound on parieto temporal region 7cm x 5cm., on
exploration of the skull, the underline bone was found
fractured. Sub dural heamotema was present.
ii) Fracture of both the bones of left forearm.
iii) Left eye blackened.
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and
cardio respiratory-arrest due to the injuries, which were ante-mortem and
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature.
12. On the next day of the occurrence i.e. dated 7.3.2004,
complainant Om Singh also got recorded his supplementary statement Ex.D1,
mentioning that the previous day, he was under shock. In fact, accused Jage
Ram, had given a lathi injury on the left side of the head of Tale Ram.
Accused Rajesh had given him a lathi injury on his left arm elbow whereas he
had earlier attributed these injuries vice-versa.
13. On 11.3.2004, accused Jage Ram and Surat Singh were produced
before SI Rajbir Singh (PW11) by village Sarpanch Ram Kishan DW4, when
6 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -7-
both them were arrested. On the basis of the disclosure statement Ex.P14 of
accused Jage Ram, lathi Ex.P18 was recovered from him, kept concealed in
the fodder Kotha of his house. Its sketch Ex.P18/A was prepared, showing the
place of recovery in rough site plan Ex. P18/B and it was taken into police
possession, vide recovery memo Ex.P15. Similarly, on the basis of the
disclosure statement Ex.P16 of accused Surat Singh, lathi Ex.P19 was
recovered from him. Its sketch Ex.P19/A was prepared, showing the place of
recovery in rough site plan Ex.P19/B and it was taken into police possession
vide recovery memo Ex.P17. Both these recoveries were witnessed and
attested by Hari Chand PW10 and PW Satyawan (since given-up as
unnecessary).
14. Accused Shree and Ram Bhaj were arrested by ASI Virender
Singh PW12 on 14.3.2004. On the basis of the disclosure statement Ex.P21 of
accused Shree, jelly Ex.P22 was recovered from him. Its sketch Ex.P21/B
was prepared, showing the place of recovery in rough site plan Ex.P21/C and
was taken in police possession, vide recovery memo Ex.P21/A. Similarly, on
the basis of disclosure statement Ex.P23 of accused Ram Bhaj, jelly Ex.P24
was also recovered from him. Its sketch Ex.P23/B was prepared, showing the
place of recovery in rough site plan Ex.P23/A and was taken into police
possession, vide recovery memo Ex.P23/C. These recoveries were witnessed
and attested by Hari Chand PW10 and PW Satywan.
15. Accused Sanjay was arrested on 21.4.2004 by ASI Virender
Singh PW12. On the basis of his disclosure statement Ex.P25, lathi Ex.P13
7 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -8-
was recovered from him. Its sketch Ex.P25/B was prepared, showing the
place of recovery in the rough site plan Ex.P25/C. It was taken into police
possession, vide recovery memo Ex.P25/A. This recovery was witnessed and
attested by Mahinder Singh PW9.
16. Accused Rajesh was arrested on 23.4.2004 by ASI Virender
Singh PW12. On the basis of his disclosure statement Ex.P26, one lathi
Ex.P12 was recovered from him. It was taken into police possession in a
sealed parcel, vide recovery memo Ex.P10, showing the place of recovery in
the rough site plan Ex.P26/A. This recovery was witnessed and attested by
EHC Dharambir and Mahinder Singh PW9.
17. On 31.3.2004, recovered jellies from accused Shree and Ram
Bhaj were produced by ASI Virender Singh before Dr. Mukesh Chand PW13
to ascertain as to whether or not, the injuries on the person of Om Singh could
have been caused by these jellies. The doctor gave his respective opinions
Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 that since those injuries were inflicted by blunt weapon, so,
it cannot be opined that these were inflicted by these weapons or not, but
possibility thereof out could not be ruled out.
18. Similarly, on 11.05.2004, the recovered lathies from accused
Sanjay, Rajesh and Jage Ram were produced by ASI Virender Singh before
the doctor to ascertain as to whether or not, the injuries on the person of Tale
Ram could have been caused by the lathies; whereupon the doctor gave his
opinion mark-A in the affirmative.
8 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -9-
19. After getting the scaled site plan Ex.P6, prepared from the
official Draftsman Sumit Kumar PW2 and after completion of other necessary
investigations, only six accused persons viz. Ram Bhaj, Shree, Surat Singh,
Sanjay, Rajesh and Jage Ram were challaned by SI/SIHO Rajbir Singh PW11
for offences punishable under sections 302,452,506,148 read with section 149
of IPC. Accused Kanwar Lal and Dalpat were innocent, so, their names were
placed in column no.2 of the challan.
20. On commitment, the aforesaid six accused persons were charged
for offences punishable under section 148 IPC and under sections 323, 302,
506, read with section 149 of IPC. Accused Rajesh, Surat, Dalpat and Jage
were also duly charged for offences punishable under section 449 of IPC. The
accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
21. After the evidence of complainant/Om Singh was recorded as
PW1, on the application of the prosecution under section 319 of Cr.P.C.,
accused Kanwar Lal, and Dalpat, were also summoned by the Court, vide
order dated 22.9.2004, to face trial along with other six accused persons. After
their appearance, they were also duly charged for the same offences, to which
they also did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
22. In order to prove the charges against the accused persons, the
prosecution examined fifteen witnesses i.e. Dr. S.P.S. Bhatia PW1; Draftsman
Sumit Kumar PW2; ASI Shri Kishan PW3 Complainant Om Singh PW4; eye
witness Raj Singh PW5; MEHC Ram Parkash PW6; Constable Karambir
PW7; HC Ramphal PW8; Mahinder PW9; Hari Chand PW10; SI Rajbir
9 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -10-
PW11; ASI Virender Singh PW12; Dr.Mukesh Chand PW13; HC Ranbir
Singh PW14 and Dr. Ravinder Sahu PW15.
The gist of the statements of the prosecution witnesses are as
under:-
PW2-Sumit Kumar prepared the site plan.
PW3-ASI Ram Krishan recorded the formal FIR (Ex.P7/A) and
endorsed the same vide Ex.P7/B. In his cross-examination, he stated that the
formal FIR was recorded exactly on the wordings of Ex.P7, the ruqa but
clarified that by way of a clerical mistake both the injuries had been attributed
to Ram Bhaj @ Bittu and not Shree.
PW4-Om Singh was the complainant of the case. His statement
has already been referred to above. In his cross-examination, he stated that in
the FIR, he had stated that Rajesh had given an injury with a lathi on the head
of his father but on the next day he had changed his version and stated that
Jage Ram had been given the lathi injury on the head of his father and not
Rajesh.
PW5-Raj Singh stated that on 06.03.2004 at about 07.00 AM, he
had come to the house of Om Singh (complainant) and he was standing on the
roof of the house with Ram Niwas. He heard the words “Maar Diya” raised
by by Om Singh (PW4). From inside the house his uncle Tale Ram (deceased)
said “Kisna Maar Diya”. Then they saw four persons grappling and assaulting
Om Singh (complainant). Kanwar Lal had taken Om Singh in his grip. Billu
@ Ram Bhaj gave a jelly blow on the right side flank of Om Singh. Shree
10 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -11-
gave a jelly blow on the left side flank of Om Singh whereas Sanjay @ Raja
gave a lathi blow on the left eye of Om Singh. Jage Ram gave a lathi blow on
the left side of head of Tale Ram, Dalpat @ Kasu gave a push to Tale Ram,
Surat Singh gave a lathi blow below the right eye on the mouth of Tale Ram
and Rajesh gave a lathi blow on the left elbow of Tale Ram. Then he along
with Ram Niwas came down from the roof and arranged for the deceased to
be taken to hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not gone
to PGI, Rohtak or to the police to lodge the report.
PW6-MHC Ram Parkash and PW7-Constable Karambir
furnished affidavits regarding different facets of the investigations.
PW8-HC Ramphal stated that he had come to PGI, Rohtak with
HC Ranbir Singh. Tale Ram was declared unfit for statement. Om Singh S/o
Tale Ram was taken by him to CHC, Sampla for his medical examination.
PW9-Mahinder Singh son of Tale Ram was examined with
respect to the recovery of a lathis from Sanjay and Rajesh. He also referred to
the recovery of a Guddar and turban of the deceased.
Hari Chand was examined as PW10 and is the witness of the
recovery of lathis from Jage Ram and Surat Singh.
PW11-SI Rajbir Singh was examined wherein he stated that Jage
Ram and Surat Singh had been produced before him by Ram Kishan,
Sarpanch. Both Jage Ram and Surat Singh got recovered lathis.
PW12-ASI Virender Singh was examined and he stated that on
the receipt of a V.T. message on 07.03.2004, he went to PGI Rohtak for
11 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -12-
conducting the inquest of Tale Ram (deceased). Shree and Ram Bhaj @ Bittu
both got recovered respective jellies. Sanjay and Rajesh got recovered their
respective lathis.
HC Ranbir Singh was examined as PW14. He got recorded his
testimony to the effect that the complainant/Om Singh had got recorded his
statement Ex.P7 on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex.P7/A was recorded.
23. The prosecution gave up PWs Ram Niwas, Rajesh, Satywan as
unnecessary and closed its evidence.
24. All the accused persons, in their respective statement under
section 313 Cr.P.C., denied almost every circumstance appearing against them
in the evidence and pleaded innocence.
25. The defence version, as put to the prosecution witnesses and as
stated in statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., by accused Ram Bhaj and
Dalpat is that due to the occurrence of 05.03.2004, regarding quarrel between
the children of Mahinder Singh and Jage, which was already compromised,
the complainant party was nursing a grudge against them. On 6.3.2004, at
about 6.30 a.m. complainant Om Singh and Tale Ram (since deceased) caught
hold of Ram Bhaj in front of the house of Jagdish and started beating him. In
the struggle and in order to save himself, Ram Bhaj gave a kick blow to
complainant Om Singh. Meanwhile Jage Ram, while returning from the
fields, intervened and tried to separate them. In the process, complainant Om
Singh fell down. In the scuffle between Tale Ram (since deceased) and Jage,
Tale Ram also fell down on a ‘Buggi’, parked in front of the house of Jagdish.
12 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -13-
None of the other persons including the two eye-witnesses namely Raj Singh
PW5 or Ram Niwas, were present at that time and place. It is further stated by
them that DSP Balwan Singh is a near collateral of the complainant party,
who misused his official position in influencing the local police, against them.
They (accused Rambhaj and Dalpat) were taken into police custody on
06.03.2004. Their signatures were obtained on blank papers. Nothing was
recovered from them. The alleged recoveries were planted.
26. Accused Shree pleaded that he was a permanent resident of
Qutubgarh (Delhi). He had no concern with the occurrence. At the time of
alleged occurrence, he was present in his village Qutubgarh. He had been
falsely roped being the son of Jage Ram and it was at the instance of their
collateral DSP Balwan Singh, whereas nothing was recovered from him.
27. Accused Kanwar Lal pleaded that he had no concern with the
occurrence in question. He was not present in the village on the said date,
time and place. DSP Ram Kanwar Singh had conducted an enquiry and had
found him innocent. He further stated that his father’s name was Jage Ram
and not Bhim Singh.
28. The other accused persons also pleaded innocence. They pleaded
that their signatures were obtained on blank papers in order to plant the
recoveries.
29. The gist of the defence evidence is as under:-
DW1-Rajesh Kataria, an official of CBSE, Chandigarh has
brought in evidence Ex.D7-copy of matriculation certificate of accused
13 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DBCRA-D-248-DB-2005 -14-
Kanwar Lal, showing the name of his father as Jage Ram. This evidence is to
support the statement of Kanwar Lal that name of his father was not Bhim
Singh but Jage Ram. Accused Kanwar Lal has also placed on record Ex.D10
and Ex.D11 copies of his own Ration Card, as well as, previous Ration card
of his father, showing the name of his father as Jage Ram.
DW2-Amar Singh Madaan, Malaria Inspector, Kutubgarh, Delhi
was examined with respect to the plea of alibi raised by Kanwar Lal.
DW3-Krishan was examined with respect to the plea of alibi of
Kanwar Lal.
DW4-Ram Kishan stated that he was a Sarpanch of Village
Paksama and knew Tale Ram and Jage Ram being residents of his village. On
16.03.2004 at about 06.37 AM, he heard the noise of fighting in front of the
house of Jagdish which was 50 yards from his house. Fighting was going on
between Ram Bhaj alias Bittu and Om Parkash. Tale Ram and Jage Ram both
came out from the respective houses carrying lathis which they carried for
support due to their old age. Tale Ram tried to give a lathi blow to Jage Ram
who avoided the same. Then Jage Ram gave a lathi blow which hit on the
head of Tale Ram. He fell on the Buggi (cart) in front of the house of
Ramdhan. On account of this injury, Tale Ram became unconscious and he
was taken away by his son.
DW5-Ramdhan gave a statement similar to that of DW4-Ram
Kishan.
14 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -15-
DW6-DSP Ram Kumar, Meham was examined. He stated that as
per his investigation, Kanwar Lal was not present at the place of occurrence
in village Paksama but was present in village Gutubgarh.
DW7-Diwan Singh was examined with respect to the plea of
alibi of Shree.
30. Based on the evidence led, the Trial Court came to the
conclusion that the recoveries of the weapons could not be convicted with the
offence in question. PW5-Raj Singh could only have witnessed the assault on
the complainant and not the assault on the deceased which had taken place
inside the house of the deceased but otherwise he could be treated as a
prosecution witness of ‘res gestae’. The injury attributed to Surat Singh on the
eye of the deceased was not an independent injury but an outcome of the
injury on the head already attributed to a co-accused and therefore, acquitted
him. Kanwar Lal was acquitted on the grounds that he had been stated to have
grappled with Om Singh and had been placed in Column No.2. Dalpat @
Kasu was acquitted on the ground that he was stated to have only pushed the
deceased and had been found to be innocent.
31. The appellants, however, came to be convicted and sentenced by
the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgments and order of
sentence dated 02.03.2005 as under:-
Offence Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of under Section payment of fine 302 IPC R/w RI for life Rs.10,000/- RI for 02 years 149 IPC each 323 IPC R/o RI for 06 months Rs.500/- RI for 01 month 149 IPC each 15 of 25 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 00:58:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -16- 506 IPC R/w RI for 06 months Rs.500/- RI for 01 month 149 each 148 IPC R/w RI for 01 year Rs.1000/- RI for 02 months 149 IPC each
Accused Jage Ram and Rajesh were additionally sentenced is as under
449 IPC RI for 08 months Rs.5000/- RI for 01 year
eachAll the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
32. Thereafter, Ram Bhaj, Jage Ram and Shree filed Appeal
No.CRA-D-248-2005 and Sanjay and Rajesh filed Appeal No.CRA-263-DB-
2005.
33. It is the aforementioned judgment, which is under challenge, in
the present appeals.
34. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant Jage Ram and
Shree S/o Jage Ram along with the counsel for Ram Bhaj contend that the
accused had been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the version in
the FIR got registered at the instance of complainant/Om @ Om Parkash, it
was Rajesh who had given an injury on the head of the deceased whereas Jage
Ram had given the injury on the left elbow of the deceased. Two statements
were made under Section 175 Cr.P.C. during the course of inquest one Ram
Niwas (not examined as a prosecution witness) and the second by the
complainant reiterating the version of the FIR that Rajesh had given an injury
on the head of the deceased and Jage Ram on the left elbow. Another
statement of Rajesh S/o Om Parkash was also recorded under Section 175
Cr.P.C. without any specific attribution to any accused. However, the
16 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -17-
supplementary statement of the complainant was got recorded on 07.03.2004
wherein Jage Ram was attributed a lathi blow on the left side of the head of
Tale Ram whereas Rajesh was attributed a lathi blow on his left elbow. This
switching of roles completely demolishes the prosecution version and makes
the presence of this witness doubtful. As regards Shree S/o Jage Ram, it is
contended that in the original complaint, no role had been attributed to him
because of which the FIR (Ex.PW7/A) does not disclose any injury caused by
this accused. However, in the ruqa (Ex.P7) brought on record, this accused is
stated to have caused an injury on the left armpit of the complainant.
Apparently, Ex.P7, has been switched later on. Be that as it may, taking the
allegations to be correct, only a simple injury has been attributed to Shree.
With respect to Ram Bhaj, it is contended that taking the allegations to be
correct, only a simple injury has been attributed to him. The consistent stand
of the counsel are that if the allegations were to be taken to be correct, then
the occurrence took place suddenly, on the spur of the moment and only a
single injury had been caused on the head of the deceased. Therefore, Jage
Ram could be liable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 449 IPC at best
whereas Shree and Ram Bhaj would be liable for their individual acts for
having caused suffice injuries to the complainant and thereby could be
convicted under Section 323 IPC alone.
35. The learned counsel for Rajesh contends that as per the FIR
Rajesh was attributed an injury on the left side of the head of the deceased
whereas Jage Ram had been attributed an injury on the elbow of the deceased.
17 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -18-
The statement of Om Parkash (complainant) was recorded during the course
of the inquest proceedings with similar allegations. A similar statement was
made by Ram Niwas during inquest proceedings. Both the statements were
made on 06.03.2004 i.e. the date of registration of the FIR. However, on
07.03.2004, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded to
the effect that it was Jage Ram who had caused an injury on the head and
Rajesh who had caused the injury on the arm. This was the version reiterated
during the course of the trial when Om Singh (complainant) was examined as
PW4. He contends that this change in attribution is fatal to the prosecution
case and makes the presence of the complainant at the spot doubtful. He
further contends that PW5-Raj Singh saw the occurrence from the roof top.
He attributed various injuries to the accused on the person of the complainant
as also the deceased. However, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion
that though this witness could have seen the occurrence outside when the
complainant was being assaulted, he could possibly not have seen the
occurrence inside the house of the deceased when he was allegedly being
assaulted. Therefore, qua the injuries on the deceased there was only one
witness and that was the complainant who had been partially disbelieved as
two co-accused namely Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh had been acquitted
despite the allegations that both Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh accompanied
by Rajesh and Jage Ram had entered the house of the deceased and assaulted
him. Once, the complainant had been partially disbelieved, it was essential to
have corroboration of his statement with other evidence which was missing in
18 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -19-
the present case, moreso when the weapons of offence allegedly recovered
have not been connected with the offence in question. On the other hand, he
contends that the role attributed to Jage Ram in the FIR and reiterated by the
complainant in Court of having caused an injury on the head of the deceased
is supported by the deposition of DW4-Ram Kishan Sarpanch who have
stated that Jage Ram had given the lathi blow on the head of the deceased.
Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Mehatar Versus The State
of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 216 to contend that in a case of a partially
reliable witness corroboration of his evidence is a must.
36. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
case of the prosecution stands established beyond reasonable doubt. PW4-Om
Singh and PW5-Raj Singh have deposed in detailed as to how and in what
manner the occurrence took place. Though, there was some change in the role
attributed to Rajesh and Jage Ram, the said fact itself was not sufficient to
doubt the prosecution case in its entirety. In fact, the medical evidence is
totally in consonance with the ocular account. He, therefore prays that the
present appeals were liable to be dismissed.
37. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record.
38. As regards accused Rajesh, a perusal of the evidence on record
would reveal that as per the FIR registered at the instance of PW4-Om
Parkash, Rajesh was attributed a lathi blow on the head of the deceased. On
the same day i.e. 06.03.2004, the statement under Section 175 Cr.P.C. during
19 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -20-
inquest proceedings was recorded of the complainant/Om Parkash again
wherein he reiterated the version that Rajesh had given a lathi blow to his
father on the left side of his head whereas Jage Ram had given a lathi blow on
the left elbow of his father. A more or less identical statement was made by
Ram Niwas S/o Tale Ram, the other son of the deceased during inquest
proceedings. However, Ram Niwas was not examined as a prosecution
witness. On the very next day i.e. 07.03.2004, the supplementary statement of
the complainant was recorded wherein he changed his version stating that it
was Jage Ram who had given the injury on the head of his father whereas
Rajesh had given an injury on the elbow. A similar statement was given
during the course of the trial.
It may be relevant to mention here that as per the prosecution
case, Rajesh, Jage Ram, Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh are stated to have
entered the house of the deceased and caused injuries on the person. Dalpat @
Kasu and Surat Singh have since been acquitted. Therefore, apparently, the
statement of this witness has been only partially believed.
PW5-Raj Singh who is stated to have witnessed the occurrence
from the roof top has only been believed to the extent that he witnessed the
assault on the complainant because the rest of the occurrence took place
inside the house of the deceased.
A perusal of the aforementioned facts show that other than the
statement of the complainant/Om Singh (PW4), there is no other
20 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -21-
corroborative evidence against Rajesh. Even this statement, as has been
discussed above is discrepant inasmuch as the role attributed to this accused
has been changed. Therefore, a doubt is certainly created regarding the
involvement of this accused in the occurrence.
On the other hand, as regards, Jage Ram, there is the testimony
of the complainant PW4-Om Singh which is further corroborated by the
deposition of DW4-Ram Kishan to the effect that it was Jage Ram who had
caused the injury on the head. However, there is no reference in the statement
of DW4-Ram Kishan as to who had caused the injury on the elbow of the
deceased though he states that the deceased had fallen at the spot on a Buggi
(cart).
39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehatar (supra), has
held as under:-
18. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that when the
witness is found to be wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty,
inasmuch as the conviction could be based on the testimony of such
a witness. The Court has further found that equally when the
testimony of a witness is found to be wholly unreliable again the
difficulty would not arise because such an evidence will have to be
discarded. The difficulty arises when a witness is found to be partly
reliable and partly unreliable. In such a case, the conviction could
not be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the
testimony of such a witness. The law laid down in the case of
Vedivelu Thevar (supra) is consistently followed by this Court in a
catena of judgments.
21 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DBCRA-D-248-DB-2005 -22-
19. In the present case, even accepting the view of the High Court
that Sindhubai (PW-1) would fall within the category of partly
reliable and partly unreliable, in such an event the High Court
should have insisted upon some corroboration to the testimony of
such a witness. However, the High Court has itself found that the
prosecution has not examined Sitabai and as such, there was no
corroboration to her testimony. Apart from that, another witness
who could have corroborated the prosecution version is Tekaram
Rahagadale. Admittedly, he has also not been examined. Another
witness, i.e. the Sarpanch (Vasanta Tarte) of the village has also not
been examined. Insofar as Police Patil/PW-4 (Narendra Katre) is
concerned, he has turned hostile. In his cross examination at the
behest of the accused he has given the following admission:
“…I did not state in my statement that when I returned after
informing the police on telephone about the incident Sindhubai
was present at my home and that she informed me about the
incident. I cannot assign any reason as to why this has not been
recorded in my statement…..”
20. As such, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Sindhubai
(PW-1) from any other witness.
21. It is further to be noted that though Sindhubai (PW-1) stated that
she had lodged a complaint at the Police Station about her
apprehension with regard to Rajkumar’s threat, no such complaint
was placed on record.
22. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court
was not justified in resting the conviction of the appellants herein
solely on the basis of the evidence of Sindhubai (PW-1) when her
testimony was found to be largely unreliable. For doing so, the High
Court should have insisted upon some corroboration.
22 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -23-
23. In our considered view, there is no corroboration to the
testimony of Sindhubai (PW-1). As such, the conviction would not be
sustainable. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt.
24. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeals are allowed;
(ii) The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by
the High Court and the trial court are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The appellants are acquitted of all the charges charged with;
(iv) Insofar as appellant Mehatar is concerned, who is on bail, his
bail bonds shall stand discharged; and
(v) Insofar as appellant Rajkumar is concerned, he is directed to be
released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
40. In view of the above discussion, we find that complainant/PW4-
Om Singh has given conflicting versions as to the injury caused by Rajesh.
Further, there is no corroboration to the statement of this witness. Therefore,
we find that the prosecution has not established its case against this accused
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Rajesh is ordered to be
acquitted of the charges framed against him.
41. As regards, accused Jage Ram, there is corroboration to the
statement of PW4 as regards the injury caused by him from the deposition of
DW4-Ram Kishan who also stated that Jage Ram had given a lathi blow on
the head of the deceased. Therefore, the allegations against him stand
established beyond doubt.
23 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -24-
42. The question that there arises for consideration is as to what
offence is made out against Jage Ram. Admittedly, he was of the age of 77
years at the time of occurrence. He was using a lathi to support himself. The
same is not a weapon of offence as such and is usually carried in villages by
aged persons. He has caused only a single injury with the said lathi on the
person of the deceased without repeating the blow. In fact, as per the
prosecution case, the occurrence started with the assault on the complainant
outside the house of the deceased. Only when the deceased asked in a loud
voice as to who was being assaulted outside his house did the accused enter
the house and cause the fatal injury to him. In this situation, it cannot be said
that the accused had an intention to commit the offence of murder but it could
be said that he was having the knowledge that by causing such an injury, the
deceased was likely to die. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to alter his
conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II of IPC. As regards sentence to
be imposed having regard to the advanced aged, being above the age of 100
years, a lenient view is warranted and we deem it appropriate to impose a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years. The sentence of fine and
sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact. However, as he
entered the house of the deceased, his conviction and sentence under Section
449 IPC is maintained. Both these sentences would run concurrently.
43. As regards, Shree S/o Jage Ram and Ram Bhaj S/o Mohinder,
they have only been attributed simple injuries on the person of the
complainant. They did not enter the house to assault the deceased. Therefore,
24 of 25
::: Downloaded on – 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033406-DB
CRA-D-248-DB-2005 -25-
we set aside their conviction under Section 302 read with149 IPC and convict
them for the offence under Section 323 IPC alone. They have undergone 01
year, 08 months and 29 days and 02 years and 04 days respectively.
Therefore, their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
44. The present appeals stand disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
JUDGE JUDGE
10.03.2025
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
25 of 25
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2025 00:58:37 :::
[ad_1]
Source link