JAGE RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000092-000092 / 2015
Diary number: 27674 / 2011
Advocates: GAGAN GUPTA Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92/2015
JAGE RAM & ORS. ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated
19.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
Criminal Appeal No.181 SB of 2000, whereby the High Court
partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants thereby
confirming the conviction of the appellants with certain
modifications.
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the
fateful day i.e. 18.11.1994, at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning the
complainant Jagdish (PW-5) along with his two sons namely
Sukhbir and Mange Ram (PW-6) were busy in cutting pullas
Page 2
2
(reeds) from the dola of their field. At that time, Jage Ram (A-1)
and his sons Rajbir Singh @ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3) and Madan
(A-4) armed with jaily, pharsi and lathis respectively, entered the
land where the complainant was working with his sons and
asked them not to cut the pullas as it was jointly held by both
the parties. Wordy altercations ensued between the parties and
Jage Ram insisted that he would take away the entire pullas. In
the fight, the accused persons started inflicting injuries to the
complainant, and his sons Rajbir @ Raju (A-2) gave a pharsi blow
on the head of Sukhbir, Jage Ram (A-1) caused injury to Jagdish
(PW-5) with two jaily blows. Additionally, Madan and Rakesh
attacked the complainant with lathi blows on shoulder and left
elbow respectively and caused several other injuries to the
complainant party. Jagdish and his injured sons raised alarm,
hearing which Rajesh and Usha came to rescue them and on
seeing them, the accused persons fled away.
3. The injured witnesses were taken to the Primary Health
Centre, Taoru where Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer,
medically examined the injured persons. Injured Sukhbir was
vomiting in the hospital and later on he was referred to General
Hospital, Gurgaon as his condition deteriorated. A CT scan
disclosed that large extra-dural haematoma was found in the
Page 3
3
frontal region with mass effect and Sukhbir needed urgent
surgery and he was operated upon and the large extra-dural
haematoma was removed. Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-2) also
examined the other injured persons, PW 5-Jagdish and PW 6-
Mange Ram.
4. Statement of Jagdish was recorded, based on which
F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Taoru, Gurgaon under
Sections 323, 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
PW 8-Ramesh Kumar (ASI) had taken up the investigation. He
examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation,
challan was filed under Sections 307, 325, 324 read with Section
34 IPC. In the trial court, prosecution examined nine witnesses
including Jagdish-PW5, Mange Ram-PW6 and Dr. Prem
Kumar-PW2 and Dr. HiIol Kanti Pal-PW9, Neuro Surgeon,
PW8-investigating officer and other witnesses. The accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating
evidence and circumstances. First accused Jage Ram pleaded
that on the date of occurrence-complainant party Jagdish and his
sons Mange Ram and Sukhbir forcibly trespassed into the land
belonging to the accused and attempted to forcibly cut the
pullas. Jagdish further claims that he along with Rakesh caused
injuries to the complainant party in exercise of right of private
Page 4
4
defence of property. He has denied that Rajesh and Usha had
seen the incident. Raju (A-2) and Madan (A-3) stated that they
were not present on the spot and they have been falsely
implicated. Rakesh (A-4) adopted the stand of his father Jage
Ram.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
17.2.2000 convicted all the accused persons under Sections 307
and 325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and one year respectively and a fine
of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the accused–appellants filed criminal appeal before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide
impugned judgment dated 19.8.2011 modified the judgment of
the trial court thereby convicted Jage Ram (A-1) under Section
325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year, convicted second accused Rajbir @ Raju under Section
307 IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for five years as
well the fine of Rs.500/- was confirmed by the High Court.
Sentence under Section 325 IPC (two counts) was modified as the
sentence under Section 323 IPC and he was sentenced to
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences
Page 5
5
were ordered to run concurrently. High Court modified the
sentence of Madan (A-3) Rakesh (A-4) under Section 323 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months (two counts) respectively. In this appeal, the appellants
assail the correctness of the impugned judgment.
6. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants contended that the evidence of the
witnesses suffers from material discrepancy and is self-
contradictory. It was submitted that injured witness Sukhbir was
not examined in the court and neither CT Scan nor x-ray nor
operational notes of Sukhbir were produced before the court and
in the absence of such material evidence, courts below erred in
convicting the second accused under Section 307 IPC.
Additionally, the learned counsel contended that the defence
plea of private defence was not considered by the courts below in
proper perspective.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State contended that the evidence of all the
witnesses satisfactorily establishes the overt act of the accused
persons and Jagdish (PW-5) and Mange Ram (PW-6) being the
injured witnesses, the veracity of these witnesses cannot be
doubted. It was submitted that the medical evidence sufficiently
Page 6
6
corroborated the oral evidence and the prosecution has
established the intention of the 2nd accused in causing attempt to
commit murder of Sukhbir and in appreciation of the evidence,
courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second
accused under Section 307 IPC and the same warrants no
interference.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
gone through the impugned judgment and perused the materials
on record.
9. As it emerges from the evidence, complainant Jagdish
(PW-5) and his two sons Sukhbir and Mange Ram were cutting
pullas. The accused party went there and asked them not to cut
the pullas. In the wordy altercation, second accused Rajbir @
Raju gave pharsi blows on the head of Sukhbir. PWs 5 & 6 have
clearly spoken about the overt act of the accused that A-1 Jage
Ram attacked and caused injury to PW-5 Jagdish with jaily blows
and that second accused Rajbir @ Raju attacked on the head of
Sukhbir with pharsi. They have also stated that Madan and
Rakesh caused injuries to PW5-Jagdish with lathi on shoulder and
left elbow respectively. PW 2- Dr. Pardeep Kumar in his evidence
stated that he has examined PWs 5 and 6 and noted the injuries
on the body of PWs 5 and 6 and issued wound certificates.
Page 7
7
Evidence of PWs 5 and 6 is amply corroborated by medical
evidence. PWs 5 and 6 being injured witnesses, their evidence is
entitled to great weight. Cogent and convincing grounds are
required to discard the evidence of injured witnesses. In the light
of the fact that PWs 5 and 6 were injured witnesses, courts below
tested their evidence for its credibility and recorded concurrent
findings that PWs 5 and 6 are trustworthy witnesses. We find no
reason to take a different view.
10. Appellants have raised the contention that the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that A-2 Rajbir attempted
to commit murder of Sukhbir. It was submitted that injured
person Sukhbir was neither examined nor medical evidence like
CT Scan, x-ray and operational notes and Sukhbir were produced
to corroborate the oral evidence and while so courts below erred
in convicting second accused Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307
IPC.
11. Dr. Pardeep Kumar-PW-2, who examined Sukhbir found
during his medico-legal examination a lacerated wound in the
middle of the top of the skull. Injured-Sukhkbir was found
vomiting in the hospital and he was examined by a Neuro
Surgeon Dr. Hilol Kanti Pal (PW-9) of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi on
19.11.1994, i.e. the day after the incident. PW-9 has stated that
Page 8
8
Sukhbir was unconscious since 2.00 P.M. on 18.11.1994 and was
deeply comatose with irregularity of pupils and a laceration was
diagnosed on the right front parietal region. Further, PW-9 has
stated that during the CT scan, it was revealed that a large
extra-dural haemotoma was present in the frontal region with
mass effect and to avoid further deterioration of his condition,
he was operated upon by frontal trephine craniopmy an
haemotoma measuring about 125 ml was evacuated. PW-9
stated that had not the operation been conducted on Sukhbir and
had not the extra-dural haemotoma removed by operation
urgently, the head injury caused to Sukhbir would have caused
his death. As noted by the High Court, it is thus brought on
evidence that had not surgical assistance been given to Sukhbir,
he would have definitely died.
12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC,
prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder
and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the
prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder of
the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended
to commit murder of another person would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction
under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable
Page 9
9
of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature
of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a
finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may
also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the
accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature
of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of
the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the
injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the
blows given etc.
13. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Kashiram & Ors.1, the
scope of intention for attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC
was elaborated and it was held as under:-
“13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28, Girija Shanker v. State of U.P.(2004) 3 SCC 793 and R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27.
* * * 16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that
1 AIR 2009 SC 1642 = (2009) 4 SCC 26
Page 10
10
death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury.” See State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 pp. 559-60, paras 11-14 and 16. 13. “6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.(1991) 3 SCC 471.”
14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head
injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the
severity of the blows, courts below recorded concurrent findings
convicting the 2nd appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our
considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @
Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
second appellant is in custody for more than three years and
since the occurrence was in the year 1994, prayed for reduction
of the sentence imposed on the second appellant to the period
already undergone. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors2., learned counsel for
the appellants additionally submitted that in terms of Section 2 (1988) 4 SCC 551
Page 11
11
357 (3) Cr.P.C. that the compensation may be awarded to the
victim and the sentence be modified to the period already
undergone.
16. For the conviction under Section 307 IPC, courts below
imposed upon the 2nd appellant rigorous imprisonment of five
years, while imposing punishment, courts have an obligation to
award appropriate punishment. Question of awarding sentence
is a matter of discretion and the same has to be exercised by the
courts taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances.
What sentence would meet the ends of justice would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the courts
must keep in mind the gravity of the offence, motive for the
crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances. Vide State of M.P. vs. Bablu Natt3; Alister
Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra4 and Soman vs. State
of Kerala5.
17. In the light of the above, considering the case in hand,
the occurrence was of the year 1994 when the complainant party
was cutting pullas, the accused asked them not to cut the pullas
which resulted in the wordy altercation. In the heat of passion,
3 (2009) 2 SCC 272 4 (2012) 2 SCC 648 5 (2013) 11 SCC 382
Page 12
12
the accused have caused injuries to the complainant party. The
second accused Rajbir @ Raju is in custody. He surrendered on
5.1.2012 and is stated to be in custody since then, for more than
three years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, in our considered view, the period of sentence of five years
may be reduced to three years apart from directing the second
appellant Rajbir @ Raju to pay substantial compensation to
injured-Sukhbir.
18. As noticed above, injured-Sukhbir sustained grievous
head injuries and was deeply comatose and was in a state of
shock and trauma. Learned counsel for the injured-witness
submitted that for quite some time injured-Sukhbir was
unconscious and thereafter suffering from mental trauma.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by Sukhbir and
the period of treatment and other circumstances, we are of the
view that, it would be appropriate to direct second appellant-
accused Rajbir @ Raju to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to
the injured-Sukhbir. When the matter came up for hearing on
14.10.2014, learned counsel for the appellants informed the
Court that he had offered Rs.5,00,000/- by way of demand draft
towards compensation to the injured-Sukhbir in the presence of
the Sarpanch of the village which he has refused to receive the
Page 13
13
same. The said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is now kept in fixed
deposit in the Registry of this Court.
19. For inflicting blows on PW-5 Jagidsh with jaily A-1 Jage
Ram was convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A-3 and A-4 have
also given lathis blows to PW-5 and were convicted under Section
323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months by the High Court. Having regard to the fact that
the occurrence was of the year 1994, considering the other facts
and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on Jage Ram (A-1), Madan (A-3) and Rakesh (A-4) is
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
20. The conviction of A-1 under Section 325 IPC, A-3 and A-
4 under Section 323 IPC is confirmed and the sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone by each of them. The conviction
of second accused Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is
confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment of five years is
reduced to the period already undergone and additionally the
second accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the
injured witness-Sukhbir. Compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
deposited in this Court by the 2nd appellant shall be paid to the
injured witness-Sukhbir. The second accused Rajbir @ Raju shall
Page 14
14
deposit the balance compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
before the trial court within three months from the date of this
judgment and on such deposit, the same shall also be paid to the
injured witness-Sukhbir. On failure to deposit the balance
compensation, the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju shall undergo
default sentence of one year.
21. The appeal is allowed to the above said extent.
Second appellant Rajbir @ Raju is ordered to be released
forthwith if not required in any other case. Bail bonds of accused
A1, A3 and A4 shall stand discharged.
………………………J. (V. Gopala Gowda)
………………………J. (R. Banumathi)
New Delhi; January 28, 2015
Page 15
15
ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT COURT NO.12 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 92/2015 arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 488/2012 JAGE RAM & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 28/01/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of JUDGMENT today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Mr. Akshat Goel,Adv.
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Second appellant Rajbir @ Raju is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Bail bonds of accused A1, A3 and A4 shall stand discharged.
(VINOD KR. JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)