Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 402 (UTT)

Harish Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-07-13

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2023
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant from Jail assailing the judgment and order dated 26.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2015, State vs. Harish Ram, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 504 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of fine, he was sentenced to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the first information report (Ext.Ka-1) was lodged by PW2-Smt. Anju Devi, daughter-in-law of the deceased (Dalip Ram) stating therein that on 28.08.2015 at about 5:00 p.m. her father-in-law, Dalip Ram S/o Prem Ram, Village Harda was sitting in his courtyard near door, appellant- Harish Ram, S/o Fakir Ram, who was her next door neighbour, was abusing his younger brother’s wife, Smt. Madhuli Devi, W/o Mangal Ram. At this, father-in-law of the informant intervened and rebuked him as to why he was abusing his sister-in-law near his house, at this, the appellant-Harish Ram asked the father-in-law of the informant that what business he had to do between them. The informant further stated that the appellant-Harish Ram was inimical with her father-in-law since before and with intention, he brought the axe from his house and inflicted a blow at the neck of her father-in-law who died in the said incident. The informant further stated that her sister-in-law-Smt. Pushpa Devi (Jethani) and other neighbours saw the said incident. According to the informant, the said information of the incident was given to the Patwari Nyoli, Tehsil and District Almora, over phone at 06:00 p.m. On the basis of the said information, a first information report was lodged with Police Station Patwari Circle, Nyoli, District Almora on 28.08.2015 at about 06:00 p.m. and the written report was handed over to the Patwari, when he reached on the spot and a Case Crime No. 1 of 2015 was registered against the appellant in Patwari Circle, Nyoli, District Almora. 3. 3. After registration of the crime, the investigation started, the inquest was drawn upon the dead body of deceased and the same was forwarded for post mortem which was conducted on the body of the deceased on 29.08.2015 at about 02:00 p.m. in the District Hospital. On 29.08.2015, at 11:00 p.m. the accused was arrested and on his pointing out, the bloodstained weapon (axe) used in the crime vide Ext.Ka-3 was recovered from inside his house, and information of arrest was given to his wife-Smt. Neeru Devi W/o Harish Ram by the Investigating Officer. A recovery memo Ext.Ka-3 of the said weapon was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Apart from it, the Investigating Officer while conducting the investigation took the blood stains earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and sent the material exhibits for forensic examination. 4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 302 & 504 IPC. After committal and handing over the paper of the case to the appellant under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. the accused was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Almora. 5. The charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 302 & 504 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty. 6. It is very relevant to mention here at this stage that after framing of the charge, when it was read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi, he gave the explanation as to how the incident, in which the deceased lost his life, had happened. The same is quoted below: 7. From the tone and tenure of the explanation given by the appellant, it is reflected that according to him, the deceased lost his life accidently when the appellant snatched the axe from deceased to save his children from him. According to the appellant, it was the deceased, who came into his house and picked up the axe lying at his house and tried to hit his children and the blow was stopped by the appellant to save his children. In this incident, he also sustained injuries on the palm of his right hand and when he snatched the axe, it hit the neck of the deceased; he fled from there and died on his courtyard. The appellant stated that the way the report was lodged against him was not true. 8. In this incident, he also sustained injuries on the palm of his right hand and when he snatched the axe, it hit the neck of the deceased; he fled from there and died on his courtyard. The appellant stated that the way the report was lodged against him was not true. 8. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. PW1-Smt. Pushpa Devi (eyewitness), PW2-Smt. Anju Devi (informant and eyewitness), PW3-Master Himanshu (eye witness of 11 years of age), PW4-Anram, son of the deceased (eye-witness), PW5-Dr. P.C. Pant, who conducted post mortem and proved it, PW6-Smt. Madhuli Devi, wife of Mangal Ram (the younger brother of appellant) and PW7-Investigating Officer Narayan Nath, who proved the documentary evidence as well as material exhibits as under: “FIR Ext.Ka-1, Panchayat Nama Ext.Ka-2, Recovery memo of axe Ext.Ka-3, Site plan Ext.Ka-4, Recovery memo of bloodstained soil and plain soil Ext.Ka-5, Recovery memo of bloodstained clothes Ext.Ka-6, Memo submission Ext.Ka-7, Post mortem report Ext.Ka-8, Chick FIR Ext.Ka-9, Panchnama Ext.Ka-10, Map of crime scene Ext.Ka-11, Map of axe recovered Ext.Ka-12, Recovery memo of axe Ext.Ka-13, Recovery memo of soil Ext.Ka-14, Recovery memo of bloodstained clothes Ex.Ka-15, Challan of dead body Ext.Ka-16, Sketch of dead body Ext.Ka-17, Sample of seal Ext.Ka-18 & 19, Letter to FSL Ext.Ka-20 & 21, Letter to CMO for P.M. Ext.Ka-22, Information memo Ext.Ka-23, Arrest and search memo Ext.Ka-24 and Charge-sheet Ext.Ka-25.” 9. After recording all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the incriminating material was put before the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statements were recorded. To the statement, which he gave after framing of the charge on 28.10.2015, which amounts to confession guilt but for right to private defence to save his children from the deceased-Dalip Kumar, was explained by him that on that day his mental condition was not fit, therefore, this statement should not be considered. In his defence, it was submitted by him that the sons of the deceased were jealous to him, who was misguided by his younger brother-Mangal Ram; all the papers were made forged; he solemnized second marriage seven years before to the incident; he had two sons from this marriage, for this reason, these people were jealous of him and in order to grab his land and house, a false case was launched against him. 10. Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Amicus Curaie for the appellant and Mr. 10. Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Amicus Curaie for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 11. At the outset, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that she admits the case of the prosecution, but the manner, in which, the incident happened, the deceased-Dalip Ram lost his life, only makes out a case against the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In substance, it is submitted by her that the incident appears to have been resulted by a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion and without pre-meditation and she tried to bring the case of the appellant within the ambit of Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC, which is quoted herein-below: “Exception 4 - 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's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 12. Learned Amicus Curiae took us to the contents of the FIR (Ext.Ka-1), in order to substantiate her arguments, that from the tone and tenure of the first information report, it can only be culled out that there was no motive between the parties, and the deceased lost his life when he allegedly intervened in the quarrel, which took place between the appellant (Harish Ram) and his sister-in-law (Smt. Madhuli Devi, W/o Mangal Ram). She further submitted that from a perusal of the first information report, it is demonstrated that when the appellant was quarrelling by exchanging abusive language with her sister-in-law, wife of Mangal Ram (younger brother of appellant), there was no axe in the hand of the appellant, and it is only after the intervention made by the deceased, the deceased picked up axe from appellant’s house and accidently got inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae also drew our attention to the evidence of informant, eye-witness of the incident, recorded as PW2 during trial to further substantiate her arguments to bring the case within the fold of Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder and strenuously argued that it is a case of sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation and motive. 14. 14. We have carefully gone through the evidence of eye-witness (PW1), eye witness-informant (PW2), child witness (PW3), eye witness (PW4) and evidence of Dr. P.C. Pant (PW5), in order to appreciate the arguments advance on behalf of the appellant as to whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the case could be brought within the fold of Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC, as suggested and argued by learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. 15. From perusal of the eye-witness account, it is proved beyond doubt that although the incident appears to have taken place in a sudden quarrel when deceased interrupted appellant, who quarrelled and hurled abuses to his sister-in-law, Smt. Madhuli W/o Mangal Ram (younger brother of the appellant), the tirade of appellant turned towards the deceased-Dalip Ram and he asked him who was he to intervene between them. But, one fact which goes against to the appellant to bring home the charges within the fold of Section 304 IPC is that, the appellant was not having the axe in his hands at that time, but after he was intervened by the deceased, he went inside his house, brought the axe from there and inflicted not only one, but as many as five injuries upon the deceased, which resulted into his instant death. This part of the prosecution version was fully corroborated by each and every eye witness and further from the antemortem injuries, three incised and two lacerated wounds were found on the person of the deceased. We could have brought the incident within the exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC, but for the five injuries inflicted upon the deceased in the entire sequence of events would bring it within the caveat “without the offender having taken undue advantage but acted in a cruel or unusual manner” found in Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC. Had it been a case of the prosecution that the axe was lying near the appellant, and in the quarrel, he suddenly picked it up and inflicted a single blow upon the deceased, the case would have been within the fold of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. 16. The prosecution has proved its case by the eye witness account and for that reason, the motive lost its significance. 16. The prosecution has proved its case by the eye witness account and for that reason, the motive lost its significance. Further, the recovery of weapon of assault i.e. the axe at the pointing of the appellant from his house, his immediate arrest from the spot, the FSL report which found blood of only one origin on the clothes of deceased-Dalip Ram, bloodstained soil on the axe, would only prove the guilt of appellant. 17. The prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant. We do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 18. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence, so awarded. Registry to send a copy of this judgment along with the LCR to the court concerned for information and compliance.