1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1478­1479 OF 2011

RAMJI …   Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB …   Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N. V. RAMANA, J.    

These appeals arise out of common judgment and

order  dated  21st  January, 2011  passed  by the  High  Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 775­

SB of  1997 and 101­SB of  1998,  whereby the  High Court  set

aside the judgment  passed  by the trial  Court  and altered the

conviction and sentence against the appellant—accused from an

offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC to that of under Section

302, IPC.

2. The  prosecution case, in  brief, is that on  21st  July,

1995 at about 9 p.m. when the complainant Darshan Lal (PW 5)

NON REPORTABLE

2

and his mother were sitting in the compound of their house, his

brother Som Raj (deceased) went upstairs. Soon thereafter, their

neighboring residents Sukhdev Singh (A1), Sandeep Singh (A2),

Ramesh  Singh (A3) and  Lali  @  Tarlok  Singh (A4)  armed  with

deadly weapons came from the upstairs dragging Som Raj and

beating him with the weapons alleging that he had thrown stones

into their house. The complainant and his mother though

requested the accused not to beat the deceased, the accused did

not pay any heed to their request and took away Som Raj to the

flour  mill of one Tara Singh and tore off his clothes. In the

commotion, Som Raj managed to escape from their clutches and

ran into the house of Bansi Lal in nude form itself and bolted

from inside. The accused again caught hold of Som Raj and given

severe beatings to him and brought him near the bus stop of the

village. At that point of time, the appellant herein Ramji (A5), who

appeared there in his SPO uniform repeatedly gave kick blows to

Som Raj  on his  head, chest  and neck.  By applying full force,

Ramji (A5) pressed the neck of Som Raj till he became

unconscious. Thereafter, all the accused lifted Som Raj and

thrown him in front of his house and fled away. The complainant

took him to Civil Hospital, Mukerian where he succumbed to the

3

injuries at about 12.30 a.m. on 22.7.1995.

3.  Upon informing by the hospital authorities, Inspector

Ram Prakash (PW 9) went to the hospital and recorded the

statement of complainant and registered FIR against the accused.

After preparing inquest report and recording statements of

witnesses, the I.O.  visited the spot,  prepared site  plan. It  was

followed by the arrest of the accused and recovery of weapons

used in the offence. All the accused  were challanned for the

offence under Section 302/34, IPC. The case was then committed

to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial.

4. The learned trial Judge, at the end of trial, formed the

opinion that all the accused were guilty of offence under Section

304 read with Section 149, IPC and accordingly convicted them

and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and

to  pay  a fine  of  Rs.2,000/­ each, in  default, to further suffer

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

5.  All the accused persons aggrieved by the judgment of

the trial  Court approached the High Court  in appeal while the

complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petition and the State

has filed separate appeal before the High Court. By the judgment

impugned herein, the High Court while dismissing the appeals of

4

the accused, allowed the State appeal and disposed of the

Criminal Revision filed by the complainant by setting aside the

judgment of the trial Court and altered the conviction of accused

from the offence under Section 304, Part II to the offence under

Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer  imprisonment for  life

and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/­ each, in default to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for one year. Assailing his conviction and sentence,

the appellant (A5) is in appeal before us.

6.  We have  heard learned  counsel for the  appellant  as

also learned senior counsel appearing for the State.

7.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

that at the time of offence, the appellant was not armed with any

deadly weapon and his presence was only at the bus stand and

well before that circumstance, the deceased had already received

severe injuries including one on forehead at the hands of other

accused Nos. 1 to 4. There was no intention of the appellant to

kill the deceased but he acted only with a view to teach a lesson

to the deceased to prevent him from creating nuisance by

throwing stones into others houses.The injuries attributed to the

appellant do not find corroboration from the post mortem report

or  medical legal report  as  there was no  injury on the neck or

5

chest of the deceased. There were contradictions in the

statements of prosecution witnesses and the High Court without

proper application of mind ignored the factum of role played by

the appellant and wrongly convicted him along with other

accused which approach of the High Court is  highly  perverse.

Learned counsel finally submitted that particularly when the trial

Court has convicted the appellant under Section 304, Part II only

on a plausible finding, the High Court ought not have altered the

conviction to Section 302, IPC and pleaded for intervention of this

Court.

8.  The case put forth by learned senior counsel appearing

for the State is to the effect that the role played by the appellant—

accused in the offence cannot be taken simply as has been done

in  a sudden provocation. It is  not a case  of inflicting  normal

injuries  or teaching  a lesson to the  victim so as  not to throw

stones into  other’s  house.  The accused chased  the  victim and

repeatedly assaulted mercilessly which exhibits his intention to

cause death of Som Raj. The entire crime executed by the

accused was witnessed by bystanders and their statements were

duly corroborated with the medical evidence.The accused, in spite

of knowing fully that the deceased was not  mentally stable,

6

beaten him cruelly. The extent of bodily injuries suffered by the

deceased and the way in which the accused gave beatings to the

deceased at the bus stop leads to the definite inference without

any iota of doubt that the accused acted clearly knowing the fact

that such bodily injuries shall cause death of the deceased.

9.  Having heard learned counsel on either side, we have

carefully gone through the material on record.

10. It is abundantly clear from the record and there is also

no denial to the factum that the crime leading to the death of a

helpless young man of 22 years age, namely, Som Raj had taken

place in four stages first at the hands of accused Nos. 1 to 4 at

the house of the deceased, secondly at the floor mill of one Tara

Singh, thirdly in the house of Bimla Devi (PW6) where the

deceased hid for a while and finally at the bus stand where the

appellant herein joined the other accused and actively

participated in the commission of crime.

11.  To analyze the guilt of the appellant in the offence, it is

unfortunate and degrading of honor that the appellant—accused

No. 5, despite being in the uniform of SPO and expected to protect

the law and order, took the law into his own hands and exhibited

unruly behavior in a public place (bus stop) and gave kick blows

7

with his shoes on the head, chest and neck of a desperate man,

who was by then already beaten black and blue  by the  other

accused. Apart from this, the accused—appellant had also put his

weight over Som Raj (deceased) and compressed his neck with full

force leading to unconscious stage of Som Raj.

12.   Darshan Lal—PW5, the complainant and author of FIR

in clear terms deposed that the appellant—accused appeared at

the bus stop in uniform and gave kick blows to the deceased with

his shoes when the deceased was lying on the ground. The blows

given by the  accused—appellant  hit the head of the  deceased,

arms and other parts of the body. Later, the accused had put his

weight on the chest and neck of Som Raj (deceased), as a result of

which Som Raj became unconscious. Then all the accused lifted

the body of Som Raj and threw it  in front of  the house of his

brother and ran away from there.

13.   Besides the  testimony of the complainant  (PW5), the

evidence led by Asha Devi (PW7) who was another eyewitness to

the incident, clearly  demonstrates  and  proves the  guilt  of the

appellant.  Further, the  evidence  of  Bimla Devi (PW6)  makes  it

clear  that the deceased entered  into her  house  in  injured and

naked condition and bolted the room from inside and only when

8

PW4—Panchayat Member, reached there and persuaded the

victim,  he  opened the  door.  We  find from  the record that the

evidences of prosecution witnesses particularly eyewitnesses

corroborate with each other to establish the chain of events and

the guilt of the accused. There is also nothing to perceive any ill­

motive on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the

accused.

14.   The  medical evidence of Dr. V.P. Singh (PW2) who

examined the deceased in the Civil Hospital at 11.15 pm on the

date of incident and the evidence of Dr. Jagdish Singh (PW3) who

conducted postmortem on the body of Som Raj, also supports the

prosecution case. The medical evidence reveals that the deceased

had suffered as many as 15 injuries on his person which were

caused by blunt objects.  The Doctor’s  opinion clearly  indicates

that the deceased was unconscious when brought to the hospital

and the  injuries sustained on his person could be possible by

dragging him on hard surface. The recoveries of towel, pant and

torn shirt near the bus stand prove the incriminating

circumstance against the appellant.

15.  Looking at the material on record, it can safely be said

without any doubt that the entire occurrence had taken place not

9

at the spur of the moment. It can also be said that the appellant,

stated to be holding the post of SPO, was not ignorant but well

aware of the fact that the death of Som Raj was likely to ensue,

for the beatings  he  received.  After  careful  consideration of the

facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the

circumstances concluding  the guilt  of the appellant are clearly

established. In other words, from the established facts and

circumstances, the only inference that could be drawn is that the

High Court has not committed any error of law in convicting and

sentencing the accused for an offence under Section 302,  IPC.

Therefore,  we are  in agreement with the  judgment of the High

Court and do not find any merit in these appeals.

16.  The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

……………………………..J. (N. V. Ramana)

……………………………..J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

……………………………..J. (M.R. Shah)

 NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 27, 2018

10