Maha Ram and anr. vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Maha Ram accused appellant owned jointly with Kundan Lal deceased a piece of land in village Basai of Mahendergarh district. A neem tree was planted therein by the accusedappellant. Some one broke the tree aforesaid. Maha Ram''s suspicion for the alleged mischief fell upon Munshi Ram son of Kundan Lal deceased.

On 6th July, 1987 around 11.00 A.M. when Kundan Lal deceased was playing cards, while sitting outside the `Nohra'' of Nathu Ram Ahir in the village aforesaid, accused appellant Maha Ram enquired from the deceased as to wity his son Munshi Ram had broken the neem tree planted by him on the land. Instead of replying in the negative that his son had not done so or denying the charge/accusation levelled against his son, the deceased asked the accused in turn as to who had seen his son Munshi Ram doing so. A wordy duel of hurling abuses upon each other ensued between the accused and the deceased thereafter.

On the side of the deceased his son Jaibir came to help his father while on the side of the accused his coaccused Leela Ram intervened. Leela Ram threw a stone on Jaibir which hit him on his left hand and caught hold of his father Kundan Lal deceased from behind. Maha Ram accused pressed the throat of deceased Kundan Lal and throttled his neck unto death. Prabhu Ram, Rang Rao, Chand and Jaibir are stated to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

On being charged with the commission of offences under section 302 read with section 34 and section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code both the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide his impugned judgment dated the 2nd November, 1987, Sessions Judge, Mahendergarh at Narnaul convicted both the accused aforesaid of the commission of offences aforesaid and vide his order dated 6th November 1987 sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each on the charge tinder sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to each one of the two accused appellants separately were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court against them, both the accused appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 555DB of 1987 in this Court.

We have heard Shri K. K. Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State and have carefully sifted the entire evidence on cord.

Leela Ram accusedappellant having admittedly died during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal abates qua him and is accordingly dismissed as such.

Accused Maha Ram and deceased Kundan Lal were both collaterals of each other. Making a grouse of the breaking of the neem tree allegedly planted by the accused on the joint land with the deceased was thus natural. The unexpected reply by the deceased father and unwanted interference of his son Jaibir in the wordy duel of abuses between two collaterals presumably added to the gravity of the situation through the intervention of Leela Ram on the side of the accused, who initially throw a stone on Jaibir and thereafter caught hold of Kundan Lal deceased from behind. It was in this situation that accused Maha Ram caught hold of the neck of the deceased and throttled him to death. It was a case of sudden quarrel, developing on the spur of the moment over a trifling (breaking of a neem sapling) admittedly planted by the accused on the joint land. The sole point which arises for consideration on given facts is whether there was an intention on the part of Maha Ram accusedappellant to kill deceased Kundan Lal or not. Dealing with this aspect of the matter learned trial court observed in para 31 of its impugned judgment as follows :

"I find myself unable to accept this argument of the learned defence counsel. It is a matter of common experience that different people have different mentality and act differently in a given situation. The instances are not lacking when murders are committed on trifles or petty matters (see observations in Narinder Bahadur v. The State, 1986 (1) Crimes 704). Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case on the basis of the aforesaid argument."

We do not feel inclined to agree with its interpretation of law on the subject and feel that the offence committed by the sole surviving accused Maha Ram falls under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code instead of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Observations made in Narinder Bahadur v. The State, Vol. IV 1986(1) Crimes 704 which were relied upon by the learned trial court in this case read, "Different people have different mentality and the instances of committing murders on very petty matters are not uncommon" ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial court for bringing the instant case within the ambit of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case aforesaid a friend had gone to another friend''s house purposely at a time when the other friend was expected to be away, to revenge his own wife''s insult by the other friend''s wife for having levelled a theft accusation against her while both the friends were living together in the same house with family and instantly killed her by striking a hammer on her head immediately when she opened the door on his pressing the call bell. It was regarding a cold blooded thought out murder. In the present case the intention behind the wordy duel started by Maha Ram with Kundan Lal, now deceased, can at the most be to admonish his son Munshi Ram for breaking the neem tree planted by the accused on the joint land., The intention to kill the deceased cannot, therefore, be ascribed to accused Maha Ram.

In almost similar case of death of a `Rakha'' by throttling it was held in Sundar Singh v. Emperor, Volume XV Indian Cases 318, "Where a sweeper had been appointed as a Rakha by a Jat to watch his crops of gram and on account of the former stealing the stuff, quarrel ensued and he was strangulated to death by the latter.

It was held that the culprit was guilty of the offence punishable by the 2nd part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In this view of the matter, appeal filed by Maha Ram partly succeeds and is allowed to the limited extent of setting aside his conviction and sentence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead Maha Ram accused appellant is convicted of the commission of an offence under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. Conviction and sentence of accusedappellant Maha Ram under section 323/34 of The Indian Penal Code is, however, maintained. As ordered by the learned trial court, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to accused appellant Maha Ram shall run concurrently.