CHHOTA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chhota Ram of Shankar Dass, resident of Village Kurali, aged 55 years (age taken from the charge sheet) stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. However, Ram Murti, another co-accused stands acquitted.

(2.) Briefly the case of the protection is that on May 5, 1988 at about 10.30 p.m. Jai Chand, since deceased in a drunken condition came to the hotel of the appellant and his brother Ram Murti (since acquitted) and asked for meals. The appellant and his brother told him in so many words that there was no flour left for him and it was just sufficient for their meals. Jai Chand got angry and started grappling with the appellant and his brother. It is then alleged that the appellant brought two Dandas and gave danda blows to Jai Chand. Thereafter his brother Ram Murti also brought a danda from the saw machine and gave blows on legs of Jai Chand. Jai Chand fell down. Surinder Kumar (PW2), who runs a shop at a distance of 20 Karams from the shop of the appellant, witnessed this occurrence, closed his shop and went to his house. On the next day i.e. May 6, 1988, Surinder Kumar PW2 made his statement (Exhibit PE) to ASI Banarsi Dass (PW7), on the basis of which formal First Information Report (Exhibit PF) under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded by Sadhu Singh MHC. It is alleged that the occurrence was also witnessed by one Sham Lal (PW5), who had been declared hostile by the prosecution during the trial.

(3.) The appellant and his brother Ram Murti were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Jai Chand. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found Chhota Ram appellant guilty of the offence and convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC. Ram Murti, co-accused stood acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. However, the State has not come up in appeal against the acquittal of Ram Murti.