KALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that he intentionally and knowingly caused injuries to Krishan Kumar on 21.10.1993, which proved fatal. Vide judgment and order dated 4.9.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, however, held him guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC only and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, he filed the present appeal, in which he was granted the concession of bail on 1.2.1996.

(2.) The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by PW2 Ram Sarup. He stated therein that he was resident of village Barot and a labourer by profession. He had two sons. His younger son Krishan Kumar, aged about 18 years, had been suffering from mental sickness for about 2 months. About 20 days earlier to the occurrence, he was taken to the Medical College, Rohtak where he was given treatment. He did recover to some an extent but again for the last 2/3 days before the occurrence his condition became the same as it was before. On 20.10.1993, the appellant, who was residing in a Dera set up in the fields near the village, came to the complainant's brother Sunehra and told him that Krishan Kumar was under the influence of some evil spirit and asked him to bring Krishan Kumar to his Dera since he possessed powers to rid Krishan Kumar of the same. On 21.10.1993 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant and his brother Sunehra and one Ramdhan took Krishan Kumar to the Dera of the appellant where the appellant and his father Dhanna were found to be present. The appellant lit an earthen lamp containing Desi Ghee and Krishan Kumar was made to sit in front of it. The appellant recited some mantras and also marked a line with ash all around Krishan Kumar and told him that there was spirit of Sayad Mohd in Krishan Kumar. Pointing towards Krishan Kumar, the appellant said in a loud voice as to whether the said spirit would leave Krishan Kumar or not. The appellant then took up a lathi lying there and started causing injuries to Krishan Kumar. Krishan Kumar started crying in pain. The complainant and his brother asked the appellant not to give lathi blows to Krishan Kumar by stating that he would succumb to those injuries. At this, the appellant replied that the injuries inflicted by him were being suffered by the evil spirit and not by Krishan Kumar. The appellant then tied both the feet of Krishan Kumar and gave him lathi blows. He also gave hot chimta blows to Krishan Kumar, who kept on crying due to pain. The complainant could not bear all this and started weeping. The appellant told him not to worry as the injuries were being inflicted upon evil spirit and, thereafter, nothing would happen to Krishan Kumar. However, Krishan Kumar became unconscious. The complainant and his brother told the appellant that Krishan Kumar had become unconscious as a result of being beaten by the appellant. The appellant again reiterated that nothing would happen to Krishan Kumar, who would be all right after some time. They were directed to come again the next morning at 9.00 a.m. at the Pir near the canal bank where he would also reach. Sunehra lifted Krishan Kumar on his back and brought him to the house. The body of Krishan Kumar became swollen. He did not regain consciousness. Next day, i.e. on 22.10.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. Krishan Kumar succumbed to the injuries. According to the complainant, it was the appellant, who had murdered his son by giving beatings with lathi and also with hot chimta.

(3.) After registration of the case, the police started the investigation. The inquest report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and the dead body sent for post mortem examination. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The appellant was arrested on 2.11.1993, who then suffered a disclosure statement pursuant to which he got recovered lathi Ex.P1 and chimta Ex.P2. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide order dated 22.12.1993 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.