RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three appellants who are brothers, and labourers by profession, were though tried for an offence under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Kala Ram, a rickshaw-puller, on 28th November, 1984, at about 6.30 p.m., yet were ultimately convicted and sentenced as follows :-

(2.) THE facts alleged against them were that on 28th November, 1984, at about 6.30 p.m., when Kala Ram deceased after doing his day's work had come back to his house in village Rasulpur Kalan quite close to Karnal town, and was talking to his brother Arjan Dass PW3 who lived at a distance of 40 paces from the former's house, Raja Ram appellant came there and asked him to pay back Rs. 100/- which he had spent on his defence in a gambling case. Thereupon Kala Ram suggested that though he did owe him some money yet what exact amount he was to pay to him, i. e. the appellant, should be got settled by a panchayat. This led to some sort of wrangling and abusing between the two of them. They actually grappled also but were separated by Arjan Dass PW3. Thereafter Raja Ram, appellant, left the spot in a huff and came back there after a short while along with his two brothers. On reaching the house of Kala Ram all the three appellants started abusing and beating him. As a result of this, Kala Ram fall on the ground. While Ved Pal and Sat Pal, appellants. caught him by arms and legs, respectively, Raja Ram appellant gave him kick and fist blows. He even squeezed the testicles of the deceased. On hearing the noise. Smt. Ram Piari, sister of Kala Ram, who also lived at a short distance from his house, was attracted to the spot. Arjan Dass PW3 also saw the occurrence from a little distance. Since on account of the injuries received by Kala Ram he became unconscious, the appellants fled from the spot.

(3.) THE court as a result of the trial that followed placed implicit faith on the testimony of PW3 Arjan Dass and Smt. Ram Piari PW 4, and held the appellants guilty as already indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Shri D.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, raised the following two contentious before me :