Ramesh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Bhalla, J.

In the premises belonging to Piare Lal (PW2), the landlord, situated near Aggarwal Mills at Rewari, rooms were rented out to different tenants. One of those rooms was in the tenancy of accused Ramesh, who was selling bangles in the said room and another was rented out to Kartar Singh deceased and he was running a ration depot therein. On 16th of March, 1987, the Holi day, both accused and the deceased took liquor together during day time. They also had cooked mutton which was consumed while drinking. At about 2.00 p.m. deceased Kartar Singh having noticed that no meat was left enquired from Ramesh where it had gone ? The said query of Kartar Singh deceased resulted into altercation between the two and the deceased gave 23 slaps to the accused. Thereafter both retired to their respective rooms.

Piare Lal (PW2) was present in this house at that time and in the meantime, Piare Lal (PW2) and Ganeshi also came in his house. They started talking to each other. In the meantime, Ramesh got up, took kulhari exhibit P1 and went into the room of Kartar Singh. Immediately thereafter, Ramesh gave a Kulhari blow on the head of Kartar Singh while he was lying on a cot. The kulhari was left embedded in the head of Kartar Singh and Ramesh ran away from there. Piare Lal (PW2), Piare Lal (PW3) and Ganeshi who were present there witnessed the occurrence. On reaching near Kartar Singh, they found that he had been rendered unconscious. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Rewari and Piare Lal (PW2), the landlord, in whose premises the occurrence took place, went to police post Gokalgate, Rawari to lodge the report.

On arrival at the police post, Piare Lal (PW2) made his statement exhibit PC at 4. 00 p.m, which was recorded by SubInspector Pohap Singh (PW7). Said statement of Piare Lal (PW2) was sent to Police Station City Rewari by the said SubInspector with his endorsement exhibit PC/1 on the basis of which present case against the accused was registered originally u/s 307/452 of the Indian Penal Code.

On arrival of Kartar Singh in injured condition. at Civil Hospital Rewari, Dr. R.S. Yadav (PW1) noticed that he had head injury with axe embedded in the head. Ruqa exhibit PA was sent by him to incharge, police post Gokalgate, Rewari at 4.30 p.m. and thereafter having noticed that condition of the patient was critical, he referred the case to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. The injured remained in the said hospital for a few minutes and only supportive treatment was given before his removal from Civil Hospital, Rewari. On arrival of the injured at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, he was examined by Dr. Sunil Mangla (PW12) on 16.3.1987 at 7.45 p.m. He also noticed that the axe was embedded in the head and there was no other injury mark. It was further noticed that the patient was unconscious. Exhibit PT is the correct carbon copy of the medicolegal report. Preliminary treatment was given and the patient was prepared for the operation for which purpose call was given to Neuro Surgeon. However, before the patient could be operated upon, he succumbed to his injury in Safdarjung Hospital on 1631987 at 11.40 p.m. Intimation about his death was given to the police and thereafter the offence was converted to one of murder u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Autopsy on the dead body of Kartar Singh deceased was performed by Dr. V. K. Jain (PW8) on 1731987 at 4.15 p.m. and he also noticed that there was an axe with handle embedded in the left parieto temporal region of the head above and behind the left pinna. On taking out the axe, it had been found to be stained with grey matter and clotted blood, Hair were also stuck on to it. In the opinion of the doctor death was due to coma resulting from the head injury which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time that elapsed between injury and death was few hours and between death and postmortem examination was within 24 hours. Exhibit PN is the correct carbon copy of the postmortem report and exhibit PN/1 is the pictorial diagram showing the seat of injury. Kulhari exhibit P1 which was pulled out of the head of the dead body ultimately on chemical examination vide reports exhibits PM and PM/1 was found to have been stained with human blood.

Accused Ramesh was arrested on 2331987 and on completion of usual investigations was challaned. On trial vide his impugned judgment dated 5/811988, the learned trial Court has convicted him under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and imprisonment for life respectively on the said two counts, making both the sentences to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved by his said convictions and sentences, accused appellant Ramesh has preferred present Criminal Appeal No 31 DB of 1988.

We have Shri K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ram Avtar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

The occurrence in this case took place during day time in the house of Piare Lal (PW2) situated in the town of Rewari. Said Piare Lal thus becomes natural witness. He was present in his house at the time of occurrence and is purely independent witness. Both accused Ramesh and deceased Kartar Singh being his tenants are equally placed to the said witness and there is nothing on the record to show if he had any leaning towards the deceased as compared to the accused. His testimony, under the circumstances, deserves highest probative value. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has also well stood the test of crossexamination. First information report in this case too was lodged by Piare Lal (PW2). His statement Exhibit PC along with endorsement Exhibit PC/l of the SubInspector was completed by 4.30 P.M. on the same day, the report can well be taken to have been made in post haste manner. Promptitude in lodging first information report guarantees truth of its contents and lodging of the report at the earliest further confirms presence of Piare Lal (PW2) at the time of the alleged occurrence. Said Piare Lal has been consistent on the material particulars of the case and first information report Exhibit PC provides effective corroboration to the statement of its author (PW2) in Court.

Piare Lal (PW3) has also supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. According to him he and Ganeshi Lal reached the house of Piare Lal (PW2) at 3.15 P.M. and thus he also witnessed the occurrence. Piare Lal (PW2) supports presence of Piare Lal (PW3). The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the testimony of any of the two prosecution witnesses which may be taken to be sufficient to discard his sworn statement.

Medical evidence also fully corroborates the ocular account and in fact weapon of offence, i.e. Kulhari Exhibit P1 was pulled out of the dead body of Kartar Singh, having been left embedded in the head, by Dr. V.K. Jain (PW8) at the time of the post mortem examination. That Kulhari ultimately was found to have been stained with human blood vide reports Exhibits PM and PM/1 and this is another circumstance which lends assurance to the ocular account.

The occurrence having taken place inside the room which was in possession of Kartar Singh deceased, and there being direct evidence to the effect that Ramesh accused went inside the said room with a Kulhari and caused fatal blow to Kartar Singh, liability under section 449 of the Indian Penal Code can neither be assailed or disputed. Mr. Aggarwal has addressed us with regard to offence and tried to suggest that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the reason that there was no illwill between the accused and the deceased and it is a case of single injury. We, however have not been able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to his suggestion. As is obvious from the discussion made above, irrespective of the earlier altercation which took place at about 2 P.M. the act of Ramesh accused in causing injury to Kartar Singh deceased was made after premeditation. It cannot be said to be a sudden quarrel without premedition in a heat of passion. Even if Ramesh was agitated by the slaps given by Kartar Singh, sufficient time elapsed thereafter to subside his passion. The accused went inside the room of Kartar Singh deceased with a heavy weapon quite unnoticed and took him by surprise while he was lying on a cot. The blow was given on the head with sharpside of the Kulhari and great force appears to have been used with a determined mind. So much so, that the axe was left embedded in the left parieto temporal region of the head. It went upto the brain and on taking out of the axe, it was found to be stained with grey matter and clotted blood. All this clearly indicates that the act by which the death was caused was done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to make the appellant liable for culpable homicide amounting to murder. Dr. V.K. Jain has also stated that the injury was sufficient enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The ruling relied upon by Mr. Aggarwal, Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 140; 1989(2) C.L.R. 78 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Every case has to be decided on its own merits and unless the facts of two cases are parallel, one cannot be used as precedent for the other to come to a conclusion with regard to offence or sentence. In the cited case, the accused acted in a sudden quarrel without premeditation in a heat of passion and the knife used was struck in a melee without possibility of any calculation. In this case, on the other hand, a heavy weapon was used against a person lying flat on a cot and weapon, seat of injury as well as force were all calculated in doing of the act. It is a case of coldblooded murder and we find no scope for any change in the offence with regard to causing of death. There is neither any scope for interference in sentence. On the other hand, both convictions and, sentence deserve to be maintained. The result is that we see no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.