Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kalu Ram@Budh Raj vs State Of Haryana on 8 September, 2014
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, Harinder Singh Sidhu
HEMLATA
Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-1-
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 08.09.2014
Kalu Ram @ Budh Raj ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: Mr.Vaishnav Gautam, Amicus Curiae
for the appellant.
Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana.
*****
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Appellant Kalu Ram @ Budh Raj has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide which he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of said HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document fine, to further undergo RI for one and a half years. Both the sentenced were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Milkha Ram stated that he along with his family including his married daughter Seema and her husband Kalu Ram (accused) had been staying in the house of Krishan Chand Bishnoi at village Nimri since 18.09.2007. On 28.09.2007, the complainant noticed that his son-in-law Kalu Ram (accused) was sitting idle and upon the same, he commented upon his lethargic behaviour whereupon an altercation took place between him and accused Kalu Ram. Thereafter, the appellant Kalu Ram went away to the fields while threatening the complainant with dire consequences.
On 01.10.2007, the complainant after leaving his family and deceased Ruda Ram at the house of his brother Krishan Chand, went to fields along with the accused-appellant for picking up cotton crop. While they were picking up the cotton crop, the complainant enquired from the appellant as to why he was sitting idle and why he was not picking up the cotton crop. Upon this Kalu Ram demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- from complainant for doing another job.
On the inability being shown by the complainant to pay the said amount, the appellant went away from there threatening him for commission of such an act that would force the complainant to HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document pay the said amount. In the evening, when the complainant reached his house, he found his 10 years old son Ruda Ram missing. He along with his brother searched everywhere but to no avail and thereafter suspected that his son has been kidnapped by the appellant and killed for want of amount as demanded from him. Upon this, FIR was registered on 4.10.2007 at about 6.30 p.m. under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC at Police Station Ratia on the basis of the complaint Ex.P-24 made by the complainant. The accused-appellant was arrested from the bus stand of Village Nagpur at 8.15 pm on 04.10.2007 on being identified by the complainant. On being interrogated, the accused suffered a disclosure statement Ex.P-1, whereby he led the police party for the recovery of the dead body which was kept by him in the fields of Jagjit Singh, by putting earth and grass on it. The said recovery memo is Ex.P-2 on the record. On the same day, accused also suffered a disclosure statement Ex.P-4 whereby he got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. 'kassi' which was stained with blood, soil and dung, from the village situated on Nagpur-Fatehabad Road. The said recovery memo Ex.P-6 is on record. All the recoveries were made in the presence of SI Hawa Singh, Police Station Ratia. Inquest proceedings were conducted and inquest report Ex.P-27 was prepared by SI Hawa Singh. Autopsy of the dead body Ex.P-33 was conducted on 05.10.2007 and a rough site HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-4- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document plan Ex.P-7 was prepared. As per postmortem report, the cause of death was opined as haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries suffered by the deceased. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in natural course of life.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as detailed in the judgement of the trial Court.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Milkha Ram, father-in-law and did not lead any evidence in defence.
The trial Court after going through the entire evidence and hearing counsel for the respective parties, held the accused to be guilty of murder of young boy Ruda Ram and convicted him for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and seven years respectively.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR which renders prosecution version highly doubtful. It was argued that recoveries made in the present case have not been effected in the presence of Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer and no independent witness was joined at the time of effecting the alleged recoveries. It was further argued that even the HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-5- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document weapon of offence i.e. kassi did not contain any blood stains.
Per contra, counsel for the State argued that the appellant has admitted in his cross examination that murder of 10 years old brother-in-law by severing his neck with a kassi, only because his father-in-law did not fulfil his demand of `10,000/- It was argued that the appellant had led the police party to the place of recovery of dead body as well as the weapons of the offence and having got recovered the same, his conviction deserves to be maintained.
We have heard counsel for the parties at length. The star witness in the present case i.e. complainant Milkha Ram PW-12. He was unfolded the sequel of events which led the appellant to commit the murder of his brother-in-law Ruda Ram by severing his neck with a kassi and thereafter putting earth and grass on his dead body in the fields of Jagjit Singh. He was wholeheartedly supported the case of the prosecution. Even his brother-Krishan Chand, PW-13 also supported the prosecution case to the hilt.
The investigating officer in the present case, SI Hawa Singh, PW-11, who arrested the accused on 04.10.2007 from the bus stand of village Nagpur, interrogated the appellant, who suffered a disclosure statement with regard to having committed the murder of his 10 years old brother-in-law Ruda Ram and pressed his throat and thereafter severed his neck with a kassi. He also led the police party HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-6- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document to the place of recovery and got recovered the dead body as well as weapons of the offence vide recovery memos Ex.P-2 and P-6 respectively.
On autopsy having been performed on the body of the deceased by Dr. O.P. Dahmiwal, PW-14, Dr. Surender Bishnoi and Dr. N.K.Chakarwarti , the following injuries were found:-
" An incised wound on left side of neck starting from mid of chin to posterior aspect of neck up to mid line size 10 X 4 inches. Blood was present in tissue and near wound. On exploration and dissection of wound, underlying structure of neck were cut i.e. superficial deep muscle vessels, thyroid gland, carotid vessels and other vessels, trachea, larynx, oesophagus and tongue were cut, Lower cervical vertebra were fractured and spinal cord was cut. Mud was present in the wound."
Cause of death in this case stated by the PW-14 was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries described above which were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. PW-14 has also stated that the injury on the person of Ruda Ram by kassi could not be ruled out. Thus, in view of the statement of PW-14, it is beyond any shadow of doubt that the death of Ruda Ram has been caused by the accused and the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused. HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-7- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Even as per the FSL report, Ex.P-36 and P-37 blood stain on the earth as well as on the boy's T-Shirt recovered from the field of Jagjit Singh at the instance of the appellant was found to be that of human which leaves no manner of doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the brutal murder of his 10 years old brother-in-law by cutting his neck with a kassi.
As far as the delay of three days in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same in our considered opinion is not fatal for the prosecution version for the reason that the appellant is the son-in-law of the complainant and the deceased was the brother-in-law and, therefore, it was not unusual for him to go with to his uncle as has been stated by PW-13, who last saw the deceased in the company of the appellant. Even the complainant could not imagine that his son-in- law would kill the young child for non-payment of `10,000/- only. It was reasonable for the complainant and his family members to search for the young child in the locality as well as at the place of their relatives and it was only when the search proved to be futile that a missing report with regard to his son was made to the police by the complainant.
In view of the fact that all recoveries in the present case were made at the instance of the appellant himself from the fields of Jeet Singh as well as from fields village situated on Nagpur- HEMLATA Crl. Appeal No.D-742-DB of 2009 2014.09.25 10:05-8- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Fatehabad Road which thus, admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Further, the deceased was the real brother-in-law of the accused. Therefore, identification of the deceased was not an issue at all in the back drop of the present case and hence, in view of the same non-joining of any independent witness is not fatal for the prosecution case.
No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that it was the appellant, who murdered his brother-in-law Ruda Ram. The appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court.
In view of the foregoing discussion as unfolded hereinabove, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, dated 18.03.2009 and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 08.09.2014 JUDGE hemlata