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)