Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Dass Sadhu And Another vs State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.581-DB of 2004
Date of Decision: 2.8.2011
Ram Dass Sadhu and another.
....... Appellants through
Baljinder Singh
Sra, Advocate.
Versus
State of Punjab.
...... Respondent through
Shri Ravinder Kaur
Nihalsinghwala,
Additional Advocate
General, Punjab.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
....
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J.
This is an appeal brought by Ram Dass Sadhu and Anand Mandal against the judgment dated 3.6.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala convicting the appellants for an offence Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -2- ....
punishable under sections 302, 323 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and the order of sentence dated 5.6.2004 vide which the following sentence has been awarded to them:-
For offence punishable To undergo imprisonment for under section 302 read life and to pay a fine of with section 34 of the I.P.C. Rs.2000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each.
For offence punishable To undergo rigorous under section 323 imprisonment for nine months read with section and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- 34 of the I.P.C. each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case set up against the appellants by Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala is as under:-
Rattan Singh son of Bhag Singh, a resident of Kothe Tarf Haji, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi is an agriculturist. He has seven killas of land near the school of village Busowal. He has installed a tube-well therein and had raised construction of a tube-well room there. He had employed Anand Mandal and Ram Dass, two persons from Uttar Pardesh (popularly addressed as `Bhayias') as servants. He had got vegetables sown in the land through these two persons. The two persons were incharge of sale of vegetables growing in the said Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -3- ....
land in the market.
On 15.11.2002, Rattan Singh along with his son Ajaib Singh and brother Avtar Singh went to the aforesaid tube-well at about 6.30 A.M. He found both Anand Mandal and Ram Dass there. Rattan Singh and his son Ajaib Singh asked them to render the accounts regarding the sale of crop. They questioned Rattan Singh and Ajaib Singh as to the account of which crop they were asking. When Rattan Singh and Ajaib Singh told them that they were asking for the accounts of the sale of cauliflower, the two got enraged. With a view to kill Ajaib Singh, Anand Mandal gave a blow with an iron rod on his face. Ram Dass gave another blow with an iron rod on the head of Ajaib Singh. On receipt of the two blows, Ajaib Singh fell down and became unconscious. Rattan Singh intervened with a view to rescue his son. Both the accused caused injuries to him also with iron roads on his hands and legs. Avtar Singh raised alarm which attracted Mohan Singh son of Charan Singh to the spot. Other persons also collected there in the meanwhile. Seeing them, the accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons While Anand Mandal was running away, he had hit an improvised transport vehicle, known as Gharuka at bus stand of Busowal and suffered injuries. Rattan Singh and Ajaib Singh were taken to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi where Rattan Singh was admitted. As the condition of Ajaib Singh was Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -4- ....
serious, he was taken to Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar. Ajaib Singh died there on 19.11.2002. Rattan Singh was medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi.
On 15.11.2002, Santokh Singh, A.S.I., Incharge Police Post, Kabirpur, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi had received medical reports of Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh from Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. After receiving the same, he had gone there and moved application, Exhibit PE to enquire about the fitness of Ajaib Singh to make statement. The doctor declared Ajaib Singh to be unfit to make statement. Thereafter, he moved another application Exhibit PH to enquire about the fitness of Rattan Singh to make statement. Rattan Singh was declared fit to make statement. However, Rattan Singh refused to make statement on that date for the reason that the condition of his son Ajaib Singh was serious and he was unable to make statement. Santokh Singh,A.S.I. then returned to the police station.
On 16.11.2002, Santokh Singh, A.S.I. again went to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi and there, he recorded the statement of Rattan Singh which was signed by the latter. An endorsement was made thereon by Santokh Singh, A.S.I. and the same was sent to the police station where Ajit Singh, A.S.I. recorded the formal F.I.R. Special reports of the case were sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -5- ....
others. Santokh Singh, A.S.I. then went to the place of occurrence and found Avtar Singh, Darshan Singh and Mohinder Singh there. They were joined in the investigation. The spot was inspected. Avtar Singh produced clothes of Ajaib Singh, i.e., shirt and parna. The same were given the shape of parcel and were sealed with seal "SS" and were taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. A rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Search for the accused was made, but they were not available.
On 17.11.2002, Santokh Singh, A.S.I. received information about Ram Dass and Anand Mandal leaving the place by boarding a bus. He went to Bus Stand, Sultanpur Lodhi and arrested Ram Dass. Anand Mandal, accused was already admitted in the hospital. After obtaining police remand of Ram Dass, he was interrogated on 19.11.2002 in the presence of Bahadur Singh and Joginder Singh, H.C. He disclosed having kept concealed an iron rod in the area of village Busowal at the tube-well of Rattan Singh under the heap of bamboo sticks. His disclosure statement was recorded which was thumb marked by him and attested by the witnesses. Ram Dass then led Santokh Singh, A.S.I. to the place of concealment of the iron rod and got the same recovered. The same was given the shape of a parcel and was sealed with the seal "SS" and was taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. Rough site plan of the place Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -6- ....
of recovery was prepared.
On 19.11.2002, Santokh Singh, A.S.I. came to know that Ajaib Singh had died at Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar. Making an entry in the daily diary in this regard and adding section 302 of the I.P.C. to the case, Santokh Singh, A.S.I. reached Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar. The dead body of Ajaib Singh was taken into custody and was brought to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. Inquest proceedings were conducted and post mortem examination on the dead body was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi. After post mortem examination, clothes of the deceased were produced by Rajinder Singh, H.C. before Santokh Singh, A.S.I. They were given the shape of a parcel and were sealed with the seal "SS". They were taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. During investigation, Santokh Singh, A.S.I. came to know that injuries on the person of Anand Mandal were a result of fall. He made an application to the doctor in this regard and the doctor opined that injuries on the person of Anand Mandal could be on account of some accident.
On 25.11.2002, the investigation of this case came to Sarabjit Singh, A.S.I. Anand Mandal was arrested by him on that day. He was interrogated on 26.11.2002 and he disclosed about his keeping concealed an iron rod on the southern side of tube-well of Rattan Singh under the cauliflower leaves. His disclosure statement Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -7- ....
was recorded which was signed by him and attested by the witnesses. Anand Mandal then led the police party to the place of concealment of the iron rod and got recovered the same. It was given the shape of a parcel and sealed with the seal "SS" and was taken into possession by way of a recovery memo. The case property had been deposited on various occasions with intact seals with the M.H.C. during the course of investigation. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the court.
Charge was framed against the accused by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 302, 323 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 18.1.2003. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
The prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in all at the trial. Noticing two injuries on the person of Ajaib Singh, deceased, Dr.Baljit Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi had declared injuries of Ajaib Singh to be dangerous to life. Dr. Kamraj, however, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ajaib Singh on 19.11.2002 and gave the cause of death as the head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. With the evidence of the prosecution coming to a close, the accused were examined in terms of section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The evidence of the prosecution put to them in the shape of questions was Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -8- ....
denied by them. They have claimed false implication in the case. Ram Dass has denied Ajaib Singh to have ever employed him as a labourer. He has even denied having sown cauliflower crop in the fields of Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh. According to him, some other persons had caused injuries to Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and succeeded in running away and they have been falsely implicated. The witnesses of the prosecution are claimed to be related to Ajaib Singh, deceased and, therefore, they are interested in the success of the case. Anand Mandal has adopted the stand taken by Ram Dass. The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence, but they did not lead any.
Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned trial court found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302, 323 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. vide the judgment dated 3.6.2004 and have been awarded sentence detailed as above, vide the order of sentence dated 5.6.2004.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of their conviction and the order of sentence, the two convicts are in appeal before us.
We have heard Shri Baljinder Singh Sra, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms.Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -9- ....
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution version is unworthy of credit. According to him, Rattan Singh, complainant had refused to make statement about the occurrence on 15.11.2002, the date of occurrence without any plausible reason. He has submitted that time was gained by the complainant for concocting the version by saying that his son had suffered serious injuries and that he was unable to make statement. He has submitted that there is no proof of the appellants having ever worked on any terms for Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and that there was no question of their liability to render accounts for any crop. He has submitted that the entire story in this regard is concocted after gaining time on the aforesaid plea. He has submitted that some unknown persons had assaulted Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and after long deliberations, they have cooked up a version against the appellants. He has submitted that Avtar Singh has not even received a single injury and his presence at the spot during the occurrence is hard to be believed. He has, thus, submitted that prosecution evidence does not stand proved in the statements of Rattan Singh, PW1 and Avtar Singh, PW2.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that if at all, any case is made out against the appellants, then it is covered by Exception 4 of section 300 of the I.P.C. According to him, Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -10- ....
the appellants were, therefore, not liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. Elaborating his submission in this regard, he has submitted that the occurrence took place all of a sudden without any premeditation. According to him, it took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the appellants have not taken any undue advantage in the matter. They are also said to have not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. He has submitted that the case, therefore, falls under Exception 4 of section 300 of the I.P.C. and it stands covered by section 304, part-II of the I.P.C.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, has submitted that Rattan Singh had suffered injuries in the occurrence and his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be held in doubt. According to her, his son had suffered serious injuries and it was sufficient to upset him. She has submitted that failure of Rattan Singh to make statement was not there to gain time to concoct a version. She has claimed that the version of the appellants appearing in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not plausible. According to her, the appellants have claimed that some other persons had inflicted injuries to Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and as those persons had run away, they (the appellants) have been falsely implicated in this case. She has Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -11- ....
submitted that this version of the appellants is unbelievable.
Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that there is nothing on record to attract Exception 4 of section 300 of the I.P.C. to this case. According to her, the facts of the case which stand clearly proved in the statements of Rattan Singh and Avtar Singh do not speak of any quarrel between the parties. According to her, Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh went to the appellants to seek accounts of the crop of cauliflower and as the appellants were not willing to render accounts and give money of their share, they attacked Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and deliberately caused injuries to them. She has submitted that it is not an act committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and, therefore, the requisite conditions for attracting Exception 4 are not available in this case. She has, thus, submitted that learned trial court has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C.
It is true that the version of the occurrence came before the police not on the day of occurrence but on the next day. The reason for not recording the statement of Rattan Singh on 15.11.2002 is that Rattan Singh was upset over the condition of his son and he did not find himself in a position to make statement.
Ajaib Singh, the son of the complainant Rattan Singh, Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -12- ....
was in receipt of two injuries. As per the medicolegal examination conducted by Dr.Baljit Singh, PW4 on 15.11.2002 at 7.15 A.M., he was in receipt of a bone deep lacerated wound of the size of 6.2 x 1 cm. on antero-posterior part of the scalp and frontal region touching the hair line of the forehead. He was not even fully conscious. Another lacerated wound was found on his person measuring 4.5 x 3.5 cm., again bone deep, on occipito-parietal junction. Looking to the seriousness of the condition of the patient, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. However, he had been taken to Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar and Rattan Singh, complainant must be worried about the life of his son, who had been referred to better hospital looking to the seriousness of his condition. The investigating officer should have looked for another witness of the occurrence, but he did not do so and for this lapse on his part, the case cannot be made to suffer.
The defence of the appellants is that some unknown persons assaulted the father son duo and as they escaped, the appellants have been falsely implicated. If the appellants had never sown any cauliflower in the fields of Ajaib Singh and Rattan Singh and had nothing to account for, there could not have been any reason for Rattan Singh to have falsely implicated them in the case of attack on him and his son. Rattan Singh in that event might not have even Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -13- ....
been familiar with these persons and there was no question of his naming these persons as the culprits.
It is not a case of effecting any improvements in the case. It is just a case of substitution of unknown persons for the real culprits by gaining time. The facts of this case clearly rule out any such possibility. So, these facts clearly show that not only the version of the appellants has no merit, but the case cannot be held doubtful for the reason that Rattan Singh failed to make statement about the occurrence on 15.11.2002.
Avtar Singh, PW2 is brother of Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh and Avtar Singh are residents of village Taraf Hazi Kothe. Rattan Singh had some land in village Busowal. It is said to have been given to the appellants for growing vegetables. It is not unusual that a person would like to take his brother with him when he is going to some other village for asking his servants to render the accounts. Mere absence of injuries on the person of Avtar Singh is not sufficient to suspect his being an eye witness of the occurrence. The occurrence did not last long. The father would be the first one to come to the rescue of his son and after hitting Rattan Singh, the father, the appellants fled from the spot. Avtar Singh could have come forward after Rattan Singh and as the appellants escaped after hitting Rattan Singh, Avtar Singh could have escaped injuries at the hands of the Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -14- ....
appellants.
Ajaib Singh, deceased and Rattan Singh, complainant were in the hospital soon after the occurrence. They did not tell the doctors that it was a case of assault by unknown persons. So, there is no circumstance on record which may run contrary to the prosecution version.
As per the version of the prosecution, Rattan Singh with his son Ajaib Singh and his brother Avtar Singh went to his land in village Busowal and asked his servants to render him the accounts of the vegetables sold by them. They enquired from the complainant and others as to account of which crop they were asking for and when they were told that they were asking for the accounts of the crop of cauliflower, they got enraged and attacked the deceased and the complainant. In this occurrence, there is no scope for application of Exception 4 to section 300 of the I.P.C. Exception 4 is in the following terms:-
"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.- It is immaterial in such cases which party Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -15- ....
offers the provocation or commits the first assault."
It clearly appears from a bare reading of the afore-quoted exception that if culpable homicide is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel with the offender not taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, then the same is not murder. None of the requirements of this exception is satisfied in this case. It is a simple case where the complainant and his son demanded accounts from their servants who were selling vegetables grown in their fields and when they faced the liability of payment of money to the complainant and his son, they got annoyed and assaulted them. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that Exception 4 to section 300 of the I.P.C. does not stand attracted to this case.
The appellants have caused injuries on vital parts of the body of Ajaib Singh, deceased with lethal weapons i.e. iron rods. Though, they gave one blow each, yet they would have given further blows to Ajaib Singh if they would not have seen Rattan Singh trying to intervene. In this situation, they cannot be said to have been working with any other intention except that of causing death of Ajaib Singh.
In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004 -16- ....
learned trial court against the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA ) ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 02,2011
"SCM"