Ram Kishan vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

A delicate issue requiring very circumspective approach is mooted before me. Whether, on the same set of evidence, particularly when it has not been established on the record as to who is the author of the fatal injury, one accused out of six accused can be singled out for conviction ?

It is alleged that on 6.12.1984 at about midnight, the accused which were six in number caused injuries to Ram Niwas with Lathis. The occurrence was witnessed by Sube Singh, father of the deceased. Ram Niwas was removed to Civil Hospital, Ghanaur by the sons of Chandru accused from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Eventually, Ram Niwas was referred to Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak where he succumbed to his injuries near Kharkhoda. Post mortem examination was performed on the dead body on 7.12.1984. The Investigation in the case was completed and all the six accused were challaned under Sections 304, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide impugned judgment dated 17.11.1987 held Ram Niwas appellant guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him thereunder. Rest of the accused were acquitted vide order dated 19.11.1987, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

I have heard Shri H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.S. Gill, Advocate and Shri S.S. Pattar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the entire record.

The lower Court after scrutinizing the evidence brought on the record and hearing arguments of counsel for the parties found the prosecution story as unnatural and except Ram Kishan appellant acquitted all the other accused by giving them benefit of doubt.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all the six accused are alleged to have given lathi blows to Ram Niwas but only four lacerated wounds were found on the person of the deceased. He further contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove as to who had caused the fatal blow. He also submitted that the trial Court has erred in accepting the prosecution case qua one set of accused (who have since been acquitted) and rejecting the same qua the appellant on the same evidence and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused. His further argument is that the prosecution case against the appellant is also doubtful and he deserves to be acquitted on the parity of the same reasoning.

The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing in the case was repeatedly asked to point out to any material on the record to show that Ram Kishan had inflicted the fatal blow. He candidly conceded that there was nothing on the record in this regard.

There is no evidence on the record to show that it was Ram Kishan appellant who had caused injuries to the vital organs like brain and skull which proved fatal. The trial Judge has disbelieved the prosecution story in toto. I fail to understand how on the same evidence particularly when it has not been established on the record as to who was the author of the fatal blow, the trial Court convicted the appellant and acquitted the remaining accused. After appraisal of the entire evidence, I am of the considered view that there is no distinguishing feature in the case of the appellant and he also deserves to be acquitted.

No other point has been urged.

For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the evidence against the appellant is, too, slender to incriminate him. The appellant is given benefit of doubt. The appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

His bail bond and surety bond, if any, shall stand discharged.