RAMJI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Ramji against the judgment passed by Shri Janeshwar Goel, Sessions Judge. Hamirpur in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 dated 30-3-1991. By means of impugned judgment, the appellant has been held to be guilty of committing offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) The appellant along with his father, mother and sister was prosecuted under Sections 304, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution against all the four aforesaid persons arrayed as accused, before the trial court was that Bakshi Ram, father of the deceased Mehar Chand and Relu Ram are real brothers and their houses are situated nearby but they were living separately for the last 20 years along with their respective families in village Palehra. On 6-10-1987 at about 6-00 P.M. pet dog of Bakshi Ram put his mouth into the pitcher of Relu Ram, when the appellant is stated to have given a stone blow to the dog. Geeta Devi, wife of Bakshi Ram took exception to this act to the appellant and asked him as to why he has given a stone blow to the pet dog, when not only Ramji abused her but also threw a stone towards her. Above all, Ramji-appellant tried to give a blow with a bamboo stick to Bakshi Ram-complainant but he somehow escaped. Another stone was thrown by the appellant at Smt. Saroti Devi, daughter-in-law of complainant Bakshi Ram, who was standing in the fields. At such point of time, Mehar Chand deceased came to the scene from the shop and found the appellant abusing as well as throwing stones, then he asked Garibo Devi, mother of the appellant as to why he (appellant) is indulging in these acts. At such point of time, the appellant is stated to have brought Bharota (an agricultural implement. for breaking big blocks of earth) and with this, he is stated to have given a blow on the neck of Mehar Chand, on receipt whereof he immediately fell down and became unconscious. Mehar Charut was taken in such condition to Barsar Hospital on the night intervening 6th and 7th October, 1987 where he died at about 12-00 Noon on 7-10-1987 as a result of injury on his occipital region. After post-mortem of the dead body, a case was registered under Sections 304/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his sister and both his parents at Police Station, Barsar. During the course of investigation, Bharota Ex. P-1 and sticks Exs. P-2 to P-4 were produced by the appellant which were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex. PB and Ex. PC respectively. During the course of investigation, it was noticed that the appellant as well as Relu Ram had sustained injuries. Besides this, Bakshi Ram complainant-father of the deceased Mehar Chand also received minor injuries. After completion of investigation, challan was filed before the trial court and. since the offence under Section 304 was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the appellant along with three other persons was committed to the Court of Session at Hamirpur where all four of them were charged for having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder in furtherance of their common intention by giving stick blows and Bharota blow to Menar Chand, who succumbed to these injuries and they also caused simple hurt to Bakshi Ram in furtherance of their common intention to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By means of impugned judgment, the other three persons were acquitted of the charges against them as there was no evidence on record to convict them but the appellant was found to be guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part-II). After hearing the appellant on the quantum of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment whereof he was given 3 months further rigorous imprisonment. It is this judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court that is assailed by the appellant in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the instant case, the judgment passed by the trial court convicting his client cannot be sustained. In support of his appeal, Shri Sharma has urged that there is no independent evidence as the so called independent witness PW-2 Dalip Chand has firstly not supported the case of the prosecution so far inflicting of injury to the deceased, and secondly even the medical evidence does not conform to the oral evidence given by PW-1 Bakshi Ram and other witnesses. Besides this, Shri Sharma has submitted that Bakshi Ram has reason to get the appellant falsely involved in this case because later had appeared as a witness against the former in a case filed by the brother of this witness for beating up his mother. Above all, as per Shri Sharma, the pet dog was admittedly brought up as a child by the complainant PW-1 Bakshi Ram and the same hit by stone by the appellant, when this animal put his mouth into the pitcher of Relu Ram in his compound; thus, learned counsel submits that it would not be safe to place reliance on the statements of Bakshi Ram and his other family members. Besides this, Shri Sharma also submitted that it is Bakshi Ram and his family members including deceased who were the aggressors. With reference to Ex. PA , report made by this PW-1, Mr. Sharma pointed out that in order to get the appellant involved in this case, the witness had gone on record to make improvements in his statement made in the court. Mr. Sharma further pointed out that the acquittal of other three alleged co-accused completely belies the case set up against all of them including the present appellant. On the other hand, Shri Chauhan, while controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out that on the basis of the materials on record, the conclusions arrived at by the trial court are correct and he further pointed out that the statement of PW-1 itself is enough to uphold the conviction of the appellant which statement, according to him, is natural and gives a correct version of the incident. It was further argued on behalf of the State that the appellant had given a fatal blow is established beyond any shadow of doubt and on this basis, he has prayed for dismissal of this appeal.