Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 744 (PNJ)

Chand Ram v. State of Haryana

2004-07-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Chand Ram son of Dei Ram stands convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jind dated September 11, 1995. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal. 2. Lila, his real brother, was also booked, but he stands acquitted. No appeal has been preferred by the State against his acquittal. 3. Jagde is the deceased in this case. He was real brother of the husband of Ram Kali, the real sister of the present appellant. She was married to Vikram. Kela, another sister of the appellant, was also married in the same family with Pala, another brother of Vikram. Jagde, Pala, Chap Singh alias Nanha and Vikram used to live in their separate houses situated in village Bhartana. Prabhu, their father, was joint with Nanha in a separate house. The houses are adjoining and situated in the same street. At the time of occurrence, Lila was a resident of Jind. Appellant Chand Ram is a resident of village Bhartana. Otherwise, the parental house of the appellant was in village Ardana, Police Station Assandh, District Karnal. The police swung into action on the report Ex.PE of Prabhu PW-3, in which he stated that three/four days prior to the present occurrence which is of 24.5.1994, an altercation had ensued between him and Vikrams wife (Ram Kali) as she wanted to place a hearth in the narrow street. Ram Kali felt ill and went to his brothers Chand Ram (appellant) and Lila (since acquitted). She had gone to Sabzi Mandi, Jind. It is then alleged that on 24.5.1994 at about 8.30 P.M. at night, Ram Kali came back accompanied by the present appellant and Lila and one more boy whose name was Raj Kumar. After reaching their house, they started objecting as to why Prabhu had quarrelled with their sister Ram Kali. It is then the case of the complainant that at that time, Pala and Nanha were also present and the present appellant and his brother were made to understand that an alteration had ensued on a very petty matter. After reaching their house, they started objecting as to why Prabhu had quarrelled with their sister Ram Kali. It is then the case of the complainant that at that time, Pala and Nanha were also present and the present appellant and his brother were made to understand that an alteration had ensued on a very petty matter. In the meantime, Jagde, the deceased, had also come towards them from his house and asked as to why the dispute was being raised over a petty matter. At that time, Lila and Raj Kumar raised lalkara saying that Jagde was the cause of dispute and he should first be taught a lesson. Thereupon, the present appellant proceeded towards Jagde and gave knife blow on his chest. A noise was raised and then the present appellant along with his brother Lila and Raj Kumar fled away from the spot. Jagde died at the spot. On the statement of Prabhu, Ex.PE, the formal FIR was recorded. Sub-Inspector Krishan Chander PW-7, the investigating officer, conducted the investigation, prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Jagde after inspecting the spot and a rough site plan was also prepared. 4. On 4.6.1994, the present appellant and his brother were arrested. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, one knife was got recovered from the place of concealment. After the completion of the investigation, the present appellant and his brother were challaned. 5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as seven witnesses. The main witnesses are PW-3, Prabhu, the first informant; PW-4 Pala, the other brother of the deceased; PW-5 Dr. (Mrs) Abha Kulshrestha, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Jagde on 25.5.1994 and found that there was one punctured wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm wide over the front of chest on left side at the level of fourth rib just on left side of the sternum. She has stated that the injury described in the post mortem could be caused by the knife recovered from the appellant. PW-6 Ved Parkash is a witness of recovery of knife. PW-7 Krishan Chander is the investigating officer. His investigation part has already been detailed in brief in the preceding para. 6. She has stated that the injury described in the post mortem could be caused by the knife recovered from the appellant. PW-6 Ved Parkash is a witness of recovery of knife. PW-7 Krishan Chander is the investigating officer. His investigation part has already been detailed in brief in the preceding para. 6. The plea taken up by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication only. He pleaded that he has been involved in this case just on account of suspicion. As stated above, brother of the appellant, namely, Lila, stands acquitted, whereas the present appellant has earned conviction. 7. I have herd Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, representing the State of Haryana. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record. 8. Mr. Jain contends that the substantive evidence is altogether different from the basic FIR, as the prosecution witnesses have come out with a different story from the one, which is the basis of the recording of the first information report. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the statements of Prabhu PW-3 and Pala PW-4. The learned counsel then contends that even the place of occurrence is not clear in this case. He then contends that the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant is also a padding in this case in order to falsely implicate him. Learned counsel then contends that even the investigation in this case is tainted and on account of all the aforesaid weaknesses, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appellant, thus, deserves acquittal. 9. In the alternative, the learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant has already undergone one year and nine months of his actual substantive sentence. He then submits that inspite of the fact that the present appellant is convicted in this case, both the real sisters of the appellant are staying with her in-laws comfortably and that no grouse has been shown from the side of the complainant till date. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant was of the age of hardly 20 years and now he is having minor children. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant was of the age of hardly 20 years and now he is having minor children. In case, he is sent to jail once again at this juncture, it would adversely affect his entire family, which is absolutely dependent upon the appellant, who is a vegetable seller. 10. Opposing the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, the learned State counsel submits that there is no reason to dis-believe Prabhu and Pala, father and brother of the deceased, who are consistent in their stand so far as the occurrence is concerned. He then contends that there cannot be any reason to falsely implicate the present appellant in this case, who had come along with his sister Ram Kali to show his resentment over an altercation ensued between his sister and Prabhu. Learned counsel further contends that since it was a sudden affair and only one injury was attributed to the present appellant, his conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court is well justified and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be up- held. With regard to the quantum of sentence, learned State counsel submits that the appellant does not deserve any leniency. 11. After hearing both the sides at length, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 304 Part II deserves to be re-affirmed. 12. The case of the prosecution mainly hinges on the statements of Prabhu PW-3 and Pala PW-4. Both these witnesses have un-folded the prosecution story, as initially put to the police by Prabhu on 24.5.1994 before SI Krishan Chander PW-7. Material discrepancies have occurred in the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, but in my considered view, those cannot be taken into account so as to dis-believe the prosecution case in its entirety. I also do not find any basic weakness so far the place of occurrence is concerned. The medical evidence corroborates the eye version account. So far as the statement of Dr. (Mrs) Abha Kulshrestha PW-5 is concerned, she, no doubt, in her cross- examination has stated that the weapon of offence must have been sharp from both the edges, whereas the knife recovered was having one side blunt. She has also stated that the knife was never shown to her prior to her examination in the Court. (Mrs) Abha Kulshrestha PW-5 is concerned, she, no doubt, in her cross- examination has stated that the weapon of offence must have been sharp from both the edges, whereas the knife recovered was having one side blunt. She has also stated that the knife was never shown to her prior to her examination in the Court. In my view, these minor lacunas cannot shatter the basis of the prosecution case, which is otherwise proved from the statements of Prabhu PW-3 and Pala PW-4. The present case cannot be a case of substitution at all. The present appellant being brother of Ram Kali thought that he should come along with his sister to the house of her in-laws and then in natural course, he entered into a tiff, which ultimately resulted into the loss of life of Jagde. I have seen the investigation part also and find no laxity on any count. 13. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt against the present appellant. His conviction as recorded by the trial Court under Section 304 Part II is, thus, confirmed. 14. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has already undergone one year and nine months of his substantive sentence. He is a vegetable seller and whole of his family is dependent upon him. Another mitigating circumstances which comes to his rescue is that both the sisters of the appellant are staying happily with their husbands. It has come in the statement of Prabhu that he was staying with Jagde and sharing his kitchen in a separate house. This has also come in the initial statement of Prabhu that the other brothers are also residing separately. This, to my mind, appears to be the reason that the other two brothers are staying comfortably with the two sisters of the appellant. 15. This has also come in the initial statement of Prabhu that the other brothers are also residing separately. This, to my mind, appears to be the reason that the other two brothers are staying comfortably with the two sisters of the appellant. 15. In Lilla Ram and others v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 119-SB of 1992, decided on 4.2.2004, this Court while relying upon three judgments of Honble Apex Court rendered in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 486; Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996(1) SC 372, while maintaining the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. However, the fine was increased in the aforesaid case. 16. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately met, if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is ordered accordingly. However, I increase the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 25,000/- and the same shall now be converted into compensation to be given to the wife of the deceased. The appellant shall be depositing the aforesaid amount before the trial Court within four months from today. In the event of default, the appellant shall have to undergo RI for two years. In case the amount is deposited, the same shall be remitted to the wife of deceased Jagde. In case of her death, the said amount would go to her legal representatives. The amount of fine to the tune of Rs. 500/- as awarded by the trial Court, if already stands deposited by the appellant, shall now be adjusted in the enhanced amount. 17. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.