//
you're reading...
legal issues

Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that 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.

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 (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
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 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 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
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. 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 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 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.
[pic]
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 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 & Ors[2].,
learned counsel for the appellants additionally submitted that in terms of
Section 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 Natt[3]; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra[4] and
Soman vs. State of Kerala[5].
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, 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 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 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

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)

———————–
[1] [2] AIR 2009 SC 1642 = (2009) 4 SCC 26

[3] [4] (1988) 4 SCC 551

[5] [6] (2009) 2 SCC 272
[7] [8] (2012) 2 SCC 648
[9] [10] (2013) 11 SCC 382

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,853,215 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com