Ram Lubhaya vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

Ram Lubhaya, 23 years, and his mother Ratni, aged 60 years, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Swarni on December 20, 1984. As a result of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to R.I. for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/ each. In default of payment of fine, they were further sentenced to R.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal.

The prosecution case against the appellants was that Swarni was married to Ram Lubhaya 78 years back. The relations between the two spouses were strained and Ram Lubhaya appellant used to beat Swarni. She went away to her brother''s house, but due to intervention of Gurmit Ram Sarpanch she came back to her husband''s house 45 days prior to the occurrence. On December 20, 1984 Piara Ram and his brother Joginder Ram who are real brothers of the deceased, came to see their sister. Swarni started preparing meals for them. Her motherinlaw Ratni took objection to meals being served to Piara Ram and Joginder Ram on the ground that they had not behaved well with them. Ratni started giving danda blows to Swarni hitting her on her face, buttocks and left ankle. Ram Labhaya accused also joined in beating Swari hitting her on the head, nose and right thigh with a daatar which he was carrying in his hand. Swarni fell down on receipt of the injuries. Ratni appellant started giving fist blows on her abdomen. Piara Ram and Joginder Ram, who were sitting nearby, raised alarm on which the two appellants ran away with their weapons. Joginder Ram brought a rickshaw and removed their injured sister Swarni to the Civil Hospital. Same time was consumed on the way as the level crossing was closed. They reached the hospital at about 8.15 p.m. Swarni died at 9.15 p.m. the same day.

The doctor Incharge of the hospital informed the police. The police came to the hospital, recorded statement Exhibit P.G. of Piara Ram on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exhibit PG/2 was entered. Inquest report was prepared and the body was subjected to postmortem examination. Ram Lubhaya accused was arrested on 25.12.1984 and bloodstained daatar Exhibit P.1 was recovered in pursuance of his statement. As a result of the post mortem examination, it was found that Swarni had an enlarged spleen almost thrice the normal size and she had died on account of rupture of the spleen.

At the trial, prosecution examined both the eyewitnesses i.e. Piara Ram, P.W.5 and Joginder Ram, P.W.6, besides the doctor, Investigating Officer and formal witnesses. Darshan Singh, a neighbour of the Ram Lubhaya, who was also named as having witnessed the occurrence, was given up as having been won over. Ram Lubhaya stated that he had stained relationship which his brotherinlaw Piara Ram and had asked him not to visit his house. He denied having had strained relations with his wife. In those days, when the occurrence took place, he was working at Ludhiana and used to commute between his residence at Phillaur and Ludhiana daily. On the day of occurrence when he returned from his duty he found his wife lying in an injured condition. He removed her to the hospital and also sent a messenger to his in laws. He had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of his in laws. Ratni denied her presence at the place of occurrence. The learned trial Court held that it was proved that Swarni was maltreated by her in laws for various reasons.

The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court had fallen in error in relying on the testimony of Piara Ram, PW5, and Joginder Ram, P.W.6. They were both real brothers of Swarni deceased. They belong to village Garha which is 21/23 kms. from the place of occurrence. Piara Ram, PW5, was working as a teacher in Government Primary School, Raipur Raiya which is 1415 kms. from his village. He went to the school either on bicycle or by a bus. Joginder Ram was working in a factory at Phillaur on Noor Mahal Road. Their coming to their sister at the close of a hectic day was somewhat difficult to believe. Their presence at the time of occurrence, according to the learned Counsel, was further rendered doubtful as the prosecution failed to examine any person of the locality even though it was admitted in the crossexamination by Piara Ram, PW5, that 1520 persons had gathered. It was also pointed out that the presence of the two brothers of the deceased was further rendered doubtful, as the doctor failed to mention their names in the chit Exhibit PE sent to the police informing them about the arrival of the injured in the hospital and her death. Lastly, it was pointed out that the conduct of the two brothers in failing to intervene when their sister was allegedly beaten by her motherinlaw and husband indicated that they had not seen the occurrence. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and giving the matter my anxious consideration, I am of the view that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses deserves to be accepted. There was history of estrangement between Ram Lubhaya and his wife and only 45 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had been persuaded to go back and join her husband through the inervention of the Sarpanch. In this context, it is at once natural and, probable that the brothers should go to see whether their sister was still having any trouble with her husband and motherinlaw or she was getting along well. The attitude of the motherinlaw in objecting to meals being prepared for her brothers is consistent with the probabilities of the case. It was rightly, observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that keeping in view the number and nature of injuries, the incident could not have lasted for any appreciable length of time. Moreover, when there is a quarrel between the husband and motherinlaw on one side and the unfortunate wife on the other side, brothers of the wife would naturally think many times before physically intervening because that would worsen the prospects of raproachments in future. The anxiety of a typical Indian brother or other close relations on the side of the wife is naturally to see that there is raprocachment and amicable settlement and the girl is accepted in the family in which she is married. They would generally be the last persons to do anything which would jeopardise her future adjustment in the matrimonial home. The presence of Piara Ram was duly noted by the doctor in the medicolegal report in the column "meant for relatives or friends accompanying the injured". He was found present when the police reached the hospital and recorded his statement. Their testimony could not be shaken in crossexamination. The question of nonproduction of other persons of the locality who had gathered is based on speculation. It is settled law that the Court has to decide a case on the basis of evidence actually produced. It is of no use speculating as to what evidence might have been produced. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants next argued that Smt. Ratni was above 65 years now. Both the accused had actually undergone about one year''s sentence and they have been on bail during the pendency of this appeal. He therefore, prayed that the appeal be accepted to the extent that the sentence be reduced to that already undergone by the appellants. He has relied on 1984(1) Cri. L.J. 833 (Lokanath Behera v. State) and 1952 Crl. L.J. 1166 (Ram Pal v. State). In Lokanath''s case (supra), the accused dealt one blow on the chest of the victim on spur of moment with blunt weapon. The victim died on account of rupture of spleen because of fracture of rib. The accused was convicted by the trial Court under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for four years. In appeal, the conviction under Section 304 Part I was set aside. Instead, the appellant was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months imprisonment already undergone by him. In Ram Pal''s case (supra), admittedly, there was no previous enmity between the parties. Alight started over exchange of abuses. The accused inflicted two blows with a light and short strick as a result of which the victim died as a result of haemorrhage due to rupture of spleen and lung. It was found that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged. The offence was held to be one under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of six months already undergone was considered adequate to inset the ends of justice. The learned Counsel for the State tried to distinguish the above decision on the ground that there was history of harassment of the deceased by the husband and motherinlaw and this was, therefore, not a typical case where the incident took place on the spur of the moment. It was also emphasised that both the accused death several blows to the deceased and the fist blows given by the motherinlaw on the abdomen of the accused were apparently responsible for causing rupture of the spleen resulting in her death.

As a matter of principle, this Court does not interfere in the exercise of the discretion in the matter of sentence awarded by the trial Court unless the exercise of jurisdiction is perverse and not in accordance with well settled principles. In the fact of the present case, however, both the appellants have undergone about one year''s imprisonment, and after careful consideration, I am of the view that the sentence already undergone by them would meet the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the appeal is allowed only to the extent that the sentence is reduced to one already undergone by the appellants. JUDGMENTed accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.