RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special courts) Act against the conviction of the two appellants Ram Lal under S. 302 and sentence of life imprisonment and Bhag Singh under section 324 and sentence of two years awarded by the Additional Judge, Special court, Ludhiana in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1985 by his judgment dated May 2, 1985.

(2.) It appears that the two appellants along with Darshan Singh and arjun Singh went to the shop of Ram Das who is running a shop of shoemaker and as Arjun Singh was the landlord of the premises. It appears that they went there to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises. It is not disputed that none of the appellants was carrying any arm or instrument of offence. They were all unarmed. At the shop some verbal excharge started. In that situation Ram Lal took up rambi, which is an instrument used in shoe making and which was lying in the shop and he inflicted one blow, which unfortunately fell on the vital part of the body resulting in fatal injury. It is alleged that bhag Singh also took rambi which again was available readily as it was a cobbler shop and he also gave a blow. There is controversy as to whether this blow resulted in two injuries one on the eyebrow and the other on the palm. The prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses Public Witness 2 Ram Das, pw 3 Ram Swarup and Public Witness 4 Darshan Singh. The first information report was lodged immediately. The defence version was that there was grappling between Buta Singh and Ram Lal and rambi was in the hand of the deceased himself and because be fell down in grappling this instrument rambi pierced in his body resulting in a fatal injury. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has been believed by the trial court and which was read before us also by the learned counsel, we see no reason to disagree with the trial court when it rejected the defence version. But from the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that there was some exchange of words which resulted in aggravating the situation. It also appears that the appellants were not carrying any instrument of offence. On the spur of the moment, they picked up the instrument of offence then and there. The trial court also after considering the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that there was no previous meeting of minds nor there was any concerted effort on the part of the appellants. This incident took place at the spur of the moment and admittedly in beat of passion. It is also clear that the appellants wanted the tenant to vacate the shop. The shop belongs to Ram Das and he was in occupation of the shop but he was not attacked.

(3.) In the circumstances as stated above it is clear that as a result of hot exchange between Buta Singh and Ram Lal tempers rose and Ram Lal picked up rambi which was lying there and in heat of passion inflicted one blow. Under these circumstances in our opinion the conviction of the appellant 1 under S. 302 Indian Penal Code could not be sustained. He could be convicted only under S. 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant 2 Bhag Singh is concerned, the court below has convicted him under S. 324 and S. 34 was not invoked. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and conviction of appellant i is converted to S. 304 Part 1. The conviction of appellant 2 is maintained. As regards sentence, appellant 1 is awarded a sentence of 8 year". rigorous imprisonment under S. 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant 2 is concerned, who is convicted under S. 324 Indian Penal Code it appears from the judgment and it is not disputed that at the time of incident he was a boy of 20 years. Under these circumstances he will be entitled to the benefit of S. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Looking to these circumstances, it is directed that instead of sending him back to prison, he shall be released on furnishing a bond for good behaviour for a period of two years to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. He shall not be taken back to custody, as he has already been released on bail.