Nathu Ram alias Balwant vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Nathu Ram appellant alongwith Jaspal Singh accused was tried for committing the murder of Ajmer Singh by the Sessions Judge, Ambala. Nathu Ram was held guilty of the said offence and was accordingly convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. Jaspal Singh accused was, however, acquitted of the charge of murder. Nathu Ram appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

The prosecution case is that on 3031986 at about 6 A.M. Ajmer Singh deceased went to the fields for easing himself. Mukhtiar Singh accompanied by Jai Parkash and Tek Chand also set out for easing themselves in the fields. It was about 6.30 A.M. when Ajmer Singh was returning from the fields and reached near the fields of Babu Ram. Jaspal Singh accused caught hold of him while saying that he (Ajmer Singh) was circulating the news that his (Jaspal Singh''s) father was having illicit relations with his (Jaspal Singh''s) wife. In the meantime, Nathu Rain accused gave a kulhari blow to Ajmer Singh which fell on his back side. On receipt of the head injury, Ajmer Singh fell down and thereafter Nathu Ram gave some more Kulhari blows to him which fell on his arm, eyebrow, right side of the face and the neck. Mukhtiar Singh and others raised alarm and then both the accused ran away leaving their weapons on the spot. Jeeta PW was also seen coming from the front side and he also witnessed this occurrence. While running away, the accused, proclaimed that they had taken the revenge of levelling false allegations. Ajmer Singh succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Leaving Prema near the dead body, Mukhtiar Singh went to the police post, Barara where he lodged the report Ex. PB with Sub Inspector Randhir Singh. The said report was sent to Police Station. Mulana for the registration of the case, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex. PB/1 was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Singh. Randhir Singh Sub Inspector went to the spot, held inquest Ex. PA/2 and sent the dead body of Ajmer Singh to the mortuary for autopsy. He also lifted bloodstained Kulhari Ex. P.l. and danda Ex. P. 18 from the place of occurrence. Turban of the deceased Ex. P. 21, shoes Ex. P. 19 and Ex. P. 20 and bloodstained earth were also recovered from the spot. The accused were arrested by Randhir Singh on the same day. At the time of arrest, Nathu Ram accused was wearing a bloodstained shirt. The shirt Ex. P7 was got removed from his person and taken into possession.

Dr. S.K. Gupta PW 1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ajmer Singh, on 3031986 at 4.00 P.M and found the following injuries :

Incised wound on the front of neck in the upper part cutting the muscles, trachea esophagus, major vessels and vertebrae.

incised wound on the right side of the face 16 cm long, extending from angle of mouth to pinna of the ear, cutting the underlying bones.

Incised wound 5 cm X I cm on the right eyebrow.

Incised wound 29 cm X 6 cm on the inner side of right arm extending from exilla to elbow cutting the muscles.

Incised wound on the back of right elbow cutting the bones through and through.

Incised wound 13 cm X 4 cm. on the back slightly to the right of midline cutting the muscles."

Death was opined to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to within one to two minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. After necessary investigation the accused were challaned and committed.

Mukhtiar Singh PW 5, Jai Parkash PW 6 and Jeeta PW 7 furnished the ocular account of the event. Sub Inspector Randhir Singh PW 9 was the Investigating Officer. The remaining evidence was of formal nature. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Besides tendering into evidence certain documents, Mohindro wife of Jaspal Singh accused was examined by Nathu Ram accused in defence.

The prosecution has virtually a castiron case against the appellant. What particularly meets the eye is the fact that Mukhtiar Singh PW 5 is the son of Ajmer Singh deceased. Jai Parkash PW 6 is the maternal uncle''s son of said Mukhtiar Singh. These witness are the close relations of the deceased and they have given a categorical evidence against the appellant on the charge of murder. Far from any animus proved against the appellant as regards these two witnesses in fact none could even be suggested to them in the pointless crossexamination directed against them. The evidence of these two witnesses, therefore, merits implicit acceptance. Equally so is the testimony of Jeeta PW 7 who being a neighbour of the deceased would be equally interested in bringing the real culprit to book. This witness had also given the ocular account of the event and his testimony remains completely unshaken. The motive which the prosecution set up to prove as a cause of crime has been equally well established on the record. The First Information Report in the case is patently prompt in the circumstances. The occurrence took place at about 6.30 A.M. on 3031996 whereas the report was lodged by Mukhtiar Singh at Police Post, Barara at 8.15 A.M. i.e. within about 2 hours of the occurrence. On the basis of that statement, the F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Mulana at 9.30A.M. No challenge to the time of its recording was made on behalf of the defence at any stage. The medical evidence in the present case is entirely consistent with the ocular account. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are entirely corroborative of an attack with kulhari and the seats of the injuries are also in line with that deposed to by the prosecution witnesses.

The learned defence counsel has contended that Nathu Ram appellant alongwith Jaspal Singh had been charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Ajmer Singh deceased in furtherance of common intention and that Jaspal Singh accused having been acquitted, the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that the appellant was not charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code but was charged jointly with the other accused with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code. However, the same is not such a defect which vitiates the trial against the present appellant, As held in (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 116,where the circumstances were almost identical, the absence of a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, against only the accused when others are acquitted, is not fatal and the defect is only a mere irregularity which is curable and no prejudice can be held to have been caused to the accusedconvict.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction and sentenced of the appellant awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed as being without merit.