Mani Ram vs State of Haryana

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal is by Mani Ram son of Karam Chand against the judgment of conviction dated 06.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 07.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicting and sentencing the Appellant for life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 302 and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The Appellant was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Ishwar resident of Dogran Mohalla, Hisar, made to ASI Ram Singh at about 10.00 pm on 26.04.2002. In his statement (Ex.17), Ishwar has stated that his elder brother Dilbag is residing at Vinod Nagar, Hisar with his family. His father used to live with him. Today i.e. 26.04.2002, his father had gone to Vinod Nagar, Hisar to meet his brother Dilbag. He went to Vinod Nagar to see his father, as he did not return by 4.00/5.00 pm. On reaching Vinod Nagar, he came to know that Mani Ram son of Karan Chand, resident of Tarsem Nagar, Hisar (the present Appellant), who is his uncle in relation was having some altercation with his father in Tarsem Nagar Dharamshala. On reaching at the gate of Dharamshala, he saw that Mani Ram was giving brick blows badly on the head of his father in the verandah of Dharamshala. He further stated that when he tried to dissuade Mani Ram, he rushed towards him with a brick and threatened him that he would finish him also. Due to fear, he went to Vinod Nagar to his brother Dilbag, where he met his father''s elder brother Surja (Tau), who was already sitting in the house of his brother. He narrated the entire story to his uncle Surja and brother Dilbag that Mani Ram was giving brick blows to his father in the Dharamshala. Thereafter, all three reached Dharamshala and found that Mani Ram was standing at the gate of Dharamshala and was saying that Parbhati has been finished, as he was talking bad things about the wife of his deceased brother. Mani Ram further stated that if anybody tried to advice him (nasihat), then he will finish him as well. Upon this, he, his brother Dilbag and his uncle Surja over-powered Mani Ram. He has stated that when Mani Ram was giving brick blows to his father at that time Mani Ram was wearing chequered shirt of red colour and white pyjama, but when they reached again at Dharamshala, Mani Ram changed clothes. After over-powering Mani Ram, they went inside the Dharamshala and found that their father was lying dead in the verandah of Dharamshala. The skull of his father was crushed on account of brick blows hurled by Mani Ram and lot of blood was lying splashed. The bricks were also lying at the spot. The cause of grudge was said to be advice of his father to Mani Ram that he should not have illicit relations with the wife of his deceased brother. Having this malice in mind, Mani Ram murdered his father today at about 6.00/6.30 pm by giving brick blows on his head. He further stated that he came to know that in the Dharamshala many persons were also drinking and playing cards and those persons also know about the occurrence. After leaving Mani Ram with his father''s elder brother Surja and brother Dilbag at the place of occurrence, ASI Ram Singh met him and he got recorded his statement. On the basis of such statement, ruqa Ex.P24 was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. On receipt of such ruqa, FIR Ex.P18 was lodged at about 10.30 pm on the same day. The special report was received by the learned Magistrate at about 2.40 am on 27.04.2002.

Thereafter, ASI Ram Singh, the Investigating Officer, along with other police officials went to the place of occurrence and arrested the accused Mani Ram, who was caught hold by Surja and Dilbag. He also photographed the scene of occurrence and taken into possession one full brick, three brick bats and a palliplastic after converting into sealed parcels. After preparing rough site plan Ex.P25 and inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body of Parbhati for post-mortem examination. During interrogation while in custody on 27.04.2002, the accused suffered a disclosure statement Ex.P23 to the effect that the clothes, which were worn by him at the time of committing the murder of Parbhati had been burnt and the same were concealed in a polythene bag under the cow dung cakes in his house. In pursuance of such statement, the accused led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered burnt clothes and ash concealed under the cow dung cakes in a polythene bag, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P22. In the meantime, Karnail Singh, Incharge Scene of Crime Team along with his staff came there. He inspected the house of the accused and taken into possession blood stained bricks, underwear and nails of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.P1 after converting into separate sealed parcels.

After completing the other necessary formalities and chain of circumstances, the accused was made to stand trial for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC i.e. for committing murder of Parbhati and u/s 201 IPC i.e. to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence.

To prove its case, apart from tendering reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exs.P27 & P28, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure ., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He, however, examined DW-1 Sudesh Kumar, DW-2 Surja, DW-3 Subhash, DW-4 Ramesh Chander Bhatia, DW-5 HC Sat Narain and DW-6 Inspector Balram in his defence. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned above.

The prosecution case is based upon eye-witnesses account as deposed by PW-10 Ishwar, son of the deceased and author of the FIR, as well as circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of burnt clothes, blood stained bricks and underwear of the accused from his residential house as well as blood stained bricks from the place of occurrence. The prosecution has also relied upon the conduct of the accused soon after the occurrence as deposed by PW-11 Dilbag, another son of the deceased. But having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and going the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of crime by the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Firstly, PW-10 Ishwar Singh, son of the deceased and author of FIR is a young boy of 24 years, whereas the accused Mani Ram was aged about 56 years at the time of commission of crime. As per the testimony of PW-10 Ishwar Singh, he saw his father Parbhati was being given brick blows by Mani Ram in Tarsem Nagar Dharamshala, but in stead of coming forward to help his father and rescue him from the brick blows allegedly being hurled by Mani Ram, he ran away from the place of occurrence and went to his elder brother Dilbag, who is residing at Vinod Nagar, Hisar. Such conduct of this witness is highly improbable, full of suspicion and does not inspire confidence. It is highly improbable that a young man would flee from the place of occurrence, when his father is being attacked by a person, who is 56 years of age. Mani Ram is alleged to be armed with brick bat. He was not possessed of any lethal weapon. In these circumstances, it was not impossible for PW-10 Ishwar Singh to over-power Mani Ram and to save his father. The place of occurrence is also not a closed room, but a public place i.e. Dharamshala where as per the version in FIR, many persons were having drinks. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the testimony of PW-10 Ishwar Singh that Mani Ram was giving brick blows upon Parbhati i.e. his father in his presence.

The circumstances of recovery of burnt clothes including red check shirt by itself is not conclusive to link the Appellant with the commission of crime. Apart from the testimony of PW-10 Ishwar Singh to the effect that the accused was wearing check shirt of red colour at the time when he was giving brick blows to his father Parbhati, there is no other evidence that the said shirt was worn by the Appellant at any time close to the time of occurrence. In fact, there is no evidence that the said shirt was ever worn by the Appellant. DW-1 Sudesh Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that on 26.04.2000 Parbhati came to his house at about 2.30/3.00 pm to know the well being of his father and after staying for 15-20 minutes he left his house to meet Mani Ram. He further stated that he dropped Parbhati on a scooter at Dharmshala Tarsem Nagar, Hisar, where Mani Ram was sitting. The Public Prosecutor has not asked any question about the clothes worn by Mani Ram at that time. Surja near relation of the deceased has been examined as DW-2. He is the person, who arrived at Dharamshala and found Mani Ram and other persons. His testimony does not help the prosecution case in any manner. He does not say that the accused was wearing red check shirt. DW-3 is Subhash, son of the accused, who deposed that his father Mani Ram was arrested by the police from his house at about 7.00 pm on 26.04.2002. The recovery of half burnt shirt is not linked to the Appellant or to the crime. The prosecution has not proved the shirt is that of Mani Ram and even if the half burnt shirt is that of Mani Ram, that fact itself is not conclusive to maintain conviction of the Appellant, as there is no evidence that Mani Ram was wearing such shirt at the time of commission of crime or when he was last seen proximate to the time of crime.

The recovery of sample nails of the accused, bricks and underwear from the house of Mani Ram again does not link the Appellant with the commission of crime. Neither the bricks nor the underwear or nails have any proof of human blood. Thus, there is no reliable, cogent & trustworthy evidence to return a finding that it is the accused alone, who has hurled brick blows on the person of Parbhati, the cause of his death.

In view of the above, we find that the conviction of the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is not made out, as the circumstances do not conclusively lead to the commission of crime by the Appellant.

Consequently, we acquit Appellant Mani Ram son of Karam Chand of the charges framed against him by granting him benefit of doubt. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.