Ram Babu vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.—This is a jail appeal directed against the conviction under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions, Judge. Ambala, upon Ram Babu, Mantu Ram and Smt. Geeta convicts.

The victim of crime was Ram Charan, husband of Smt. Geeta accused. Ram Charan deceased was employed as a Chowkidar in the supply depot of the Indian Oil. The deceased and others, namely, Ghanshyam, Ram Saran and Raj Kishore were residing at Dera Batti Wala in Regiment Bazar, Ambala Cantt. The room of Raj Kishore and that of the deceased were adjacent to each other. Ram Babu accused who is the son of the maternal uncle of Ram Charan and the other accused Mantu Ram were residing with the deceased in the same quarter. The deceased was having suspicion that Ram Babu was having illicit relations with his wife Smt. Geeta and he used to quarrel with her on this account.

The prosecution case is that on 1.4.1986 at about 3 A. M. Raj Kishore, Ghanshyam and Ram Saran heard the noise from the quarter of the deceased and they immediately rushed to that quarter. They pushed the shutter of the quarter and it got opened. They found that all the three accused were present inside the quarter of the deceased. They had gagged the mouth of Ram Charan deceased and Smt. Geeta was holding the latter by his legs, whereas, the other two accused were strangulating him. When the witnesses asked the accused as to what they were doing they remarked that they had done the job which they wanted to do. They also remarked that there was a dispute between the deceased and Smt. Geeta. Smt. Geeta accused also told the witnesses that the deceased had been beating her and so he had been finished by them. Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt, by Raj Kishore, Ghanshyam and Ram Saran, where he was declared dead by Dr. P. Sinha. On receipt of intimation from the doctor, Surjit Singh Assistant Sub Inspector went to the said hospital and recorded the statement Ex. PE of Raj Kishore on the basis of which formal FJR Ex. PE/1 was recorded at Police Station Ambala Cantt at 5.00 A. M. on 1. 4. 1986. Surjit Singh held inquest and sent the dead body of Ram Charan to the mortuary for autopsy. The accused were arrested. There were injuries on the person of Mantu Ram and therefore, he was sent to the hospital for medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Mrs. Sinha who found foursimple injuries on his person as detailed in the medicolegal report Ex. PA.

Dr. R.P. Sharma PW 3 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rain Charan on 1. 4. 1986 at 11.40 A. M. and found as many as 27 injuries as detailed in the postmortem report Ex. PB. Death was opined to be due to asphyxia and vasovagal shock. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be instantaneous and between death and postmortem within 36 hours. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed

Raj Kishore PW 7 and Ghanshyam PW 8 furnished the ocular account of the event. Surjit Singh Assistant Sub Inspector PW 9 was the Investigating Officer in the case. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

As was noticed at the outset, this appeal has been filed through jail. However, Mr. Inderjit Singh Kapur appearing as amicus curiae has taken us through the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution. The learned defencecounsel, however, very disarmingly conceded that in view of the castiron nature of the case; he had hardly anything to urge in sup.port of the present appeal.

Now, the hallmark of the prosecution case here is the unimpeachable nature of the ocular account. There is hardly anything in dispute that the occurrence took place in the quarter of the deceased. The eyewitnesses, namely, Raj Kishore and Ghanshyam who were residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased, were attracted to the place of occurrence on hearing the commotion raised by the deceased and witnessed the grievous assault on the deceased. The significant thing however, is that not a hint of any animus or interestedness against the appellants could even be suggested in these witnesses. For the detailed reasons recorded by the trial Court, which we affirm, we unhesitatingly accept the ocular account qua Ram Babu and Mantu Ram appellants. The medical evidence in the present case is entirely consistent with the ocular account. The First Information Report in the case is patently prompt in the circumstances of the case. For these reasons the conviction of Ram Babu and Mantu Ram for the murder must necessarily be upheld.

As regards Smt. Geeta appellant, we are of the opinion that it is not certain that this appellant in fact participated in the occurrence. The only part attributed to her was that she caught hold of the legs of her deceasedhusband. Besides the testimony of the eyewitnesses, there exists no objective circumstance to connect this appellant with the crime. Hence out of abundant caution, we acquit Smt. Geeta appellant by giving her the benefit of doubt.

The appeal qua Ram Babu and Mantu Ram appellants is patently without merit and is hereby dismissed.