Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Kumar Alias Jita vs State Of Haryana on 17 September, 2008
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: September 17, 2008.
Parties Name
Ranjeet Kumar alias Jita
..APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
PRESENT: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Adv., for Mr. Sunil Panwar,
Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
JASBIR SINGH, J.
JUDGMENT
Vide judgment and order dated August 20, 1996, the appellant- accused was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause. Hence this appeal.
Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of the judgment under challenge, reads thus:
"The case of the prosecution against the accused is that he was employed by Gurbachan Singh resident of Salaru, Tehsil and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -2- District Karnal, for working as an agricultural labourer on payment of Rs. 15,000/- besides food tea etc. for the whole year. He, however, did not turn up for work for several days inspite of being asked to do so by Gurbachan Singh and his wife Kulwant Kaur. On 17.10.1995, Gurbachan Singh had to employ a combine harvester for harvesting paddy crop and, therefore, around 9 PM on 16.10.1995, he along with his wife had gone to the house of the accused to ask him to come for work on the following day. The accused was not available at his house. On way back to their house, they met the accused near the house of Chatru Harijan. They asked him to come for work on the next morning. The accused thereupon told him (Gurbachan) that he would not come for work and that he could do whatsoever he liked. Thereupon Gurbachan Singh gave him slap blows. On this the accused left the spot saying that he would teach him a lesson for giving slap blows. He brought a Kulhari from his house and while abusing Gurbachan Singh, inflicted Kulhari blows on him on various parts of his body. On the alarm of Kulwant Kaur, Vikram Singh came there. On seeing him the accused ran away from the spot. The witnesses saw the occurrence in the light of electricity. They brought the injured to the hospital at Karnal but on the way Gurbachan Singh died."
On receipt of ruqqa ( intimation) Ex. PE, Sub Inspector Chattar Bhuj went to the Civil Hospital, Karnal, where he met Smt. Kulwant Kaur CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -3- (PW2) wife of the deceased. Her statement Ex. PC was recorded by him, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/2 was recorded at 1.20 AM on October 17, 1995. Special report reached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal , at 5.30 AM on October 17, 1995.
Investigating Officer went to the spot and lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PF. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent it for post- mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. R.K.Saini (PW1), who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
"1. An incised wound 4 cms x 1 cm on the left side of the middle of the mendibular boarder. It was 3 cms lateral to left angle of mouth. Underlying muscles and mandible bone was cut and fractured.
2. Reddish colour abrasion 5.5 cms x 3 cms on the left maxiliary prominence and lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep was present in its middle.
3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the left side of the face, 3 cms in front of left tragus of the ear.
4. An abrasion 3.5 cms x 2.5 cms on the front of the middle of the lower part of the neck.
5. There was depression on the left side of the middle of the front of chest. A reddish colour contusion 4.5 cm x 2.5 cm present in its middle. On dissection there was fracture of the 5th to 8th ribs on the left side in the middle." CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -4-
Cause of death was declared shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries, referred to above, which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Appellant - accused was charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant - accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him. He denied the allegations, pleaded false implication and innocence. However, in reply to question No. 7, he admitted that the deceased had caused slap blows to him. He further stated that he has falsely been involved in the alleged crime because he was a poor person. He also stated that he remained employed with the deceased about 4 - 5 years ago. He denied any quarrel with the deceased. He led no evidence in defence.
Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving guilt of the accused. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment.
Shri Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant - accused in this case. By making reference to the statement of Smt. Kulwant Kaur (PW2) wife of the deceased he argued that her presence at the spot was not probable. Occurrence was stated to have taken place at 9.45 PM on October 16, 1995. At that late hour of the night, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -5- in villages, a woman was not expected to venture out with the male folk. Furthermore, she had made no attempt to save her husband from the appellant - accused. Similarly, presence of PW4 Shri Vikram Singh was not proved on record. His presence in Harijan Mohalla was not justified at about 10 O'Clock during night. He also made no attempt to intervene at the time of alleged assault to the deceased by the appellant - accused. It was pitched dark, as such identification of the assailant was not possible. He further argued that the deceased was in the habit of taking heavy dose of liquor. On that day also, he was drunk and fallen down on pegs meant to tie the animals and had suffered injuries, which resulted into his death. In the alternative, he prayed that as per admitted case of the prosecution, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation to the appellant - accused, in which he lost his self-control and caused injuries to the deceased. As such offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC. Rather it will fall under Section 304, Part II IPC.
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri S.S.Randhawa, Advocate, counsel for the respondent - State. He, by
making reference to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, argued that the judgment and order under challenge are perfectly justified and are based upon evidence on record. He further argued that pretext of causing injuries, on account of grave and sudden provocation, is not correct. After getting slap blows from the deceased, the appellant - accused went to his house, brought weapon of offence and caused fatal injuries to the deceased. His intention to kill the deceased was proved on record. He prayed that no leniency be shown to him and his appeal having no substance be dismissed.
On analysis of evidence on record, we are not inclined to accept CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -6- argument of counsel for the appellant that PW2 and PW4 were not present at the spot. It has come on record that the appellant - accused was employed with the deceased. He was not coming to do his duty. The deceased was to harvest his rice crop and he went to ask the appellant- accused to attend the duty next day. It was dark. PW2, being his wife, may have accompanied him to the residence of the appellant. Such like behaviour is not unreasonable. At the time of occurrence, the appellant - accused was armed with a deadly weapon. May be, being a lady, she may not have attempted to intervene when appellant accused had caused injuries to her husband. Above said fact cannot be read against her. Presence of PW4 at the time of occurrence is also believable. It was harvesting season, his assertion that he had gone to the Harijan Mohalla, to engage labou, appears to be correct.
Recording of FIR was very prompt. Occurrence had taken place at 9.45 PM. The injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, Karnal, ( at a distance of more than 8 Kms.) In the hospital, he was declared brought dead. On receipt of intimation, Investigating Officer reached the Civil Hospital, recorded statement of PW2 and FIR was recorded at 1.20 AM on October 17, 1995. Special report reached Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal at 5.30 AM on that very day. Sequence of events indicate that no opportunity was available with the prosecution to introduce any false story.
Contention of counsel for the appellant - accused that the alleged offence was committed under grave and sudden provocation appears to be justified. It is positive case of the prosecution that the appellant - accused was in service of the deceased. He had already received wages, in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -7- advance against a receipt and was not attending the work for the last 4- 5 days. Deceased had been asking the accused to join his duty but he had failed to respond. Harvesting combine was to be engaged on October 17, 1995 for harvesting the crop. The complainant along with the deceased went to the house of the appellant - accused. He was not available. On their way back, he met them. When asked to come present on the next morning, he refused. Upon this, deceased gave slap blows to the appellant - accused. Appellant went away and came back with a deadly weapon and caused injuries to the deceased. It is apparent from the record that the assault was initiated by the deceased. He was still in the Harijan Mohalla, at a little distance from the house of the appellant-accused. The accused was a young man of 24 years, on account of slap blows given to him, it was natural for him to feel humiliated and he may have lost his self control. It is not case of the prosecution that the appellant - accused had chased the deceased for a long distance. Everything had happened in Harijan colony. The period between the appellant - accused picking up the weapon from his house and causing injuries to the deceased was very short.
Under above mentioned circumstances, we feel that it was not a pre-planned murder. The occurrence had taken place on account of deceased giving slap blows to the appellant - accused in his Mohalla near to his residence. In view of facts, mentioned above, we feel that appellant - accused can be given benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shyam Veer and others, 2005(10) SCC 611, has held that where a murder was committed on getting grave and sudden provocation, the action would fall in Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. In the above said case, the accused CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 537-DB OF 1998 -8- had set on fire house of an individual( who had murdered their brother, about 15 minutes prior to the assault committed by them) resulting in his death as well as that of his father, mother and two brothers. Their lordships of the Supreme Court, taking note of the facts in that case, held that no doubt there was a time gap between death of brother of the accused and their causing assault on the deceased, the action appears to have been taken under grave and sudden provocation. Similar is the view expressed by the apex Court in Bonda Devesu v. State of A.P., 1996(7) SCC 115. In that case, the deceased misbehaved with wife of the accused. On getting information, the accused therein came to the spot and caused death by giving an axe blow. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the act was done by the accused under grave and sudden provocation. Similar are the facts of this case. It appears that after getting slaps blows from the deceased, near his residence, the appellant had lost his balance and caused injuries to the deceased, which resulted into his death.
In view of facts, mentioned above, we partly allow this appeal, set aside conviction and sentence of the appellant - accused under Section 302 IPC , however, he is held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304, Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Sentence of fine with default clause, imposed by the trial Court, is maintained.
( Jasbir Singh) Judge ( Sabina ) September 17, 2008. Judge DKC