LACHHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Lachhi Ram, has come up to this Court in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab upholding the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and115 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gurgaon. Both the courts below have, on the consideration of evidence, held that the appellant had enmity with the complainant, Devi Ram, even though they were collaterals in the third or fourth degree and their wives were sisters. There was a dispute between them about payment of compensation of some land, and on July 28,1958, the appellant had sent a post-card to Devi Ram enquiring why he was delaying the payment of compensation, asking him to act intelligently and sensibly, and telling him that it was not good to forcibly usurp the share of others. Then, about six months before the occurrence, which was the subject-matter of the charge, the appellant and his brother Chet Ram visited Devi Ram in his village Tigaon and made a demand in respect of the property, adding a threat that otherwise he would have to pay heavily for the same. On January 27, 1962, when Devi Ram came back to his house in the evening, his wife told him that a friend of his from Rewari had sent some laddoos, peras and bananas through a person who had given his name as Partap Singh. She further told him that Partap Singh had informed her that the letter which he was asked to give with the sweets had been lost on the way. Devi Ram's wife described that young man, as Partap Singh. Thereafter, Devi Ram, his wife, his two sons and an infant daughter took their meals, and all of them ate the Peres, the laddoos, and the bananas, while some of these, which were left over, were placed aside. At night, the infant daughter started vomiting and passing loose motions, and this was followed by vomiting and passing of loose motions by all the other members of the family. Devi Ram sent for the village Vaid, Mohinder Singh, who came at about 4 a. m. and gave some medicine with tea; but the condition of all the members of the family did not improve. The local doctor, Rajinder Singh, was then sent for, but by the time he arrived, the infant daughter, Padam Wati, died. The doctor removed all the persons to his dispensary and from there sent them to a hospital in Faridabad in an ambulance. Devi Ram's wife was removed from Faridabad to Irwin Hospital, Delhi, but she also died on the 28th January, 1962. Devi Ram himself, however, recovered. The matter was brought to the notice of the Police and on investigation, one Himmat Singh, who turned the approver, was arrested. Himmat Singh then related the story on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted.

(2.) According to Himmat Singh, after he passed his Matriculation Examination in 1955, he remained in the employment of some wine contractors in Ludhiana and later he took to motor driving for which he obtained a 1icence in 1958. Then, he was looking for a job when he came to Gurgaon where he used to take his meals in the hotel of one Arjan Singh. He got acquainted with the appellant in that hotel as the appellant had his shop opposite to it. The appellant was nice to him and arranged to get a house for him at a monthly rental of us. 9. The appellant also started paying his rent and expenses for the meals. There after, the appellant took him in his confidence, told him that he wanted to get Devi Ram murdered and offered money if the approver helped him in accomplishing his purpose. The approver agreed. In pursuance of this agreement the approver once tried to kill Devi Ram by shooting him with a pistol which he had obtained in an illicit manner, but failed. After this failure, the appellant worked out this plan of buying sweetmeats in which arsenic was to be mixed. On the 25th January, 1962, the appellant told the approver that he had made all arrangements and promised to pay him Rs. 800 if the approver did the job assigned to him. On the morning of the 27th January, 1962, the appellant, accompanied by the approver, went and purchased one seer of Laddoos and half a seer of khoa from the shop of Dal Chand and sugar was purchased from the shop of one Jodha Ram. One dozen bananas were also purchased from a rehriwala. The appellant had already procured white arsenic and he mixed it in the khoa and the sugar which he had purchased, and prepared peras with it. Thereafter, the appellant gave to the approver two bags containing the peras and the laddoos, and separately gave the bananas. He paid Rs. 150 in cash and promised to pay the balance on conclusion of the errand. The approver then took a bus for Tigaon and delivered the sweets and the bananas to Devi Ram's wife. Subsequently, when the approver asked for the balance of the money. It was not paid to him because Devi Ram survived and the appellant went back on the contract on the ground that success had not been achieved in his objective which was to commit the murder of Devi Ram. On these facts disclosed by the approver and the prosecution evidence available, the appellant was prosecuted and has now been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) The only point urged in this appeal before us by learned counsel for the appellant was that the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court did not apply the correct principles of 1aw applicable to appreciation of evidence of an approver. We find no force in this submission, as the judgment of the High Court makes it quite clear that there was full justification in this case for upholding the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the approver's evidence as corroborated by other prosecution evidence.