Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajo And Sanju And Anr. vs The State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2008
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 358-DB of 2006 filed by Rajo wife of Sanju and Criminal Appeal No. 622-DB of 2006 filed by Sanju and another.
2. All the three appellants have been convicted for the murder of Ballu Ram who was maternal grandfather of the appellant Rajo and appellant Kalu. Sonu is husband of Rajo.
3. Case of the prosecution as unfolded by Fusa Ram (PW-2) son of deceased Ballu Ram in his statement dated 30.3.2002 recorded at 3-00 P.M. by Kanwal Pal Singh, SI (PW-10) is that Archi Devi sister of Fusa Ram (PW-2) was living at Rajasthan. Her husband Sewa Ram was living at Ludhiana alongwith his sons Kalu Ram and Raju and daughters Ghoto and Rajo and Sanju, husband of Rajo. Ballu Ram deceased father of Fusa Ram and Morli Devi (PW-3) mother of Fusa Ram had come to meet Fusa Ram (PW-2). On 29.3.2002 at 12-15 P.M., they assembled at the house of Sewa Ram in connection with the matrimonial alliance of Ghoto. Sewa Ram wanted to engage Ghoto to his cousin Tilku. Ballu Ram was not happy with this. This led to a quarrel. Rajo gave a brick blow on the side of head of Ballu Ram. Sanju also gave a blow with brick on the left side of head of Ballu Ram. Sewa Ram gave dang blow on the left leg of Ballu Ram. Kalu and Raju gave blows with dang and hockey to Ballu Ram. Kalu also gave hockey blow on the arm of Morli Devi. Raju gave a dang blow at the forehead of Fusa Ram (PW-2) near left eye. Anopa gave a blow with brick on left ankle of Fusa Ram. People gathered there. The accused fled away. Ballu Ram and Morli Devi were taken to the hospital, but Ballu Ram died on the way. Fusa Ram proceeded to the police station and met SI Kanwal Pal Singh on the way who recorded his statement, which led to registration of FIR. PW 10 SI Kanwal Pal Singh went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan and then went to Civil Hospital. He prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He conducted further investigation and sent up six accused for trial being the three appellants i.e. Rajo, Sanju, Kalu and Sewa Ram (who died during pendency of the trial), Raju (who has been declared proclaimed offender) and Anopa (since acquitted).
4. Dr. Sanjiv Hans (PW-1) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ballu Ram and found following injuries:
1. A lacerated wound 3 CM x. 75 CM bone deep present on left side of scalp in the left frontal region.
2. An abraded contusion on 4 cm x 2 cm present on posterion medial aspect of left fore-arm at its lower 1/3rd. Bluish in colour.
3. Contusion 3 cm 2 cm Present on posterior aspect of left fore arm in its middle. Bluish in colour.
4. An erythmatous contusion 10 cm x 1.05 cm present on enterior aspect of left thigh at its lower 1/3rd.
5. A defuse swelling 2 cm x 2 cm on left side of occipital region near the base of skull.
6. On dissection of skull clotted blood and laceration present in the area of injury No. 1 and injury No. 5, under the scalp. On clearing the clot underlying bone i.e. left front to temporal bone corresponding to injury No. 1 and left side occipital bone corresponding to injury No. 5 were fractured. On opening the vault there is big haomatoma in the vault. On cut section there is congestion and laceration of brain matter.
5. According to him, cause of death was as a result of multiple injuries i.e. injury Nos. 1 and 5, which were on the head and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW-4) examined Fusa Ram (PW-2) and found simple injuries. Dr. Anil Verma (PW-7) examined Morli Devi and found six injuries, out of which, injury No. 1 was grievous and other were simple. The grievous injury was on right fore-arm. The prosecution examined Dr. Sanjiv Hans (PW-1), Fusa Ram (PW-2), Morli Devi (PW-3), Dr. S.K. Sharma (PW-4), ASI Kuldip Singh (PW-5), Happy Nand (PW-6), Dr. Anil Verma (PW-7), Dr. Manjit Singh (PW-8), S.I. Bhupinder Singh (PW-9) and Inspector Kanwal Pal Singh (PW-10).
6. The accused denied prosecution allegations.
7. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Substance of reasons given by the trial Court are as under:
(i) Evidence of Fusa Ram (PW-2), who was an injured eyewitness and son of the deceased was reliable and fully supported by the evidence of Morli Devi (PW-3), who was also an injured eyewitness and widow of the deceased. There was no material discrepancy and the version given by the said witnesses was fully corroborated by the medical evidence;
(ii) Since only one injury was attributed to Anopa, who was an old lady, aged 93 years, she was entitled to benefit of doubt. All other accused were held guilty for causing the death of Ballu Ram. Sewa Ram having died, proceedings were dropped against him. Raju had been declared proclaimed offender.
9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. We find that version given by Fusa Ram (PW-2) son of the deceased Ballu Ram and Morli Devi (PW-3), widow of the deceased is natural and reliable and there is no material discrepancy therein. They are both injured witnesses. The occurrence took place in broad day light. Their being relative witnesses is no ground to reject their testimony. They will not be interested in implicating the accused falsely, who are also closely related to them, and substitute them for the real accused. They have no enmity with the accused. Their version is also corroborated by the medical evidence.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out minor discrepancies. It was stated that according to Fusa Ram (PW-2), Sewa Ram gave injury on the left leg while according to PW-3 Morli Devi, Sewa Ram gave dang blow on the head. According to Fusa Ram (PW-2), Raju gave blow on Ballu Ram without mentioning the seat of injury. Fusa Ram (PW-2) further stated that Raju gave blow on left eye of Fusa Ram, but PW-3 Morli Devi did not specify the place of injury. Fusa Ram (PW-2) attributed a blow to Kalu without specifying the seat of injury on the person of Ballu Ram. He further attributed injury on right arm of Morli Devi to Kalu. Morli Devi (PW-3) was silent on this aspect. Fusa Ram (PW-2) attributed blow on left side of the head to Sanju but Morli Devi did not specify that role. Fusa Ram (PW2) attributed blow on back side of the head of Ballu Ram to Raju, but Morli Devi did not specify the seat of injury. Anopa was attributed blow on left ankle but PW-3 Morli Devi did not specify the said role. Anopa had since died.
12. It is well settled that minor discrepancies may take place on account of error of observations or on account of loss of memory and unless they shake the credit of witnesses, such discrepancies cannot be given any significance.
13. We are not concerned about the role of Anopa, who stands acquitted and has died or role of Sewa Ram who also died during trial or of Raju who has been declared proclaimed offender. We are only concerned about the role attributed to Kalu, Sanju and Rajo. Since the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment, it cannot be held that there was any common intention or pre-meditated plan to cause death of Ballu Ram. We are of the opinion that all the three appellants will be liable for their individual role in the given facts and circumstances. Kalu is not attributed any head injury and his conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. His conviction under other heads for having caused injuries is, however, upheld. It is stated that he has undergone six years of custody. He is sentenced to period of custody already undergone.
14. As regards Sanju and Rajo, they are attributed one blow each on the head of deceased and death took place on the cumulative effect of said blows. We have already held that there was no premeditated plan to cause death and the deceased was maternal grandfather of Rajo and Sanju is husband of Rajo. It is also not free from doubt to hold that they intended the head injuries attributed to them as they have thrown brick on account of anger on account of difference of opinion in a family matter. In these circumstances, the appellants Sanju and Rajo will be liable to conviction under Section 304-II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. They are said to have been in custody for six years. We sentence them to undergo RI for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each, as it is stated that they are extremely poor and doing the work of boot-polishing.
15. Accordingly, while upholding conviction of the appellants, we set-aside conviction of Kalu under Section 302 IPC but uphold his conviction and sentence under other offences.
16. We alter the conviction of appellants Rajo and Sanju to Section 304-II IPC, for which they are sentenced to undergo RI for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default, to undergo further RI for one month each. Conviction and sentences under other heads will stand but will be concurrent with the sentence under Section 304-II IPC.
17. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.