HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, convicting the appellant Hari Ram (32 years) under section 302,1. P. Code and sentencing him to death. There is the usual reference by the court for confirmation of the death sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case emerged out of an incident of double murder of two ladies, Smt. Bohari (60 years) and Smt. Geeta (23 years) said to be the mother and wife respectively of the accused Hari Ram. It was stated, that Hari Ram used to object to the two ladies that they should not pay a visit to his maternal uncle Ganga Ram, with whom he has some previous enmity. Despite those protests by Hari Ram it was stated that on 18 -M977 at about 3.30 p. m., Bohari, mother of the accused took some ghee in a bag and also took some other articles, and told Hari Ram that she was going to visit Ganga Ram. The accused protested and did not like her to visit the house of Ganga Ram. However, Bohari started with the articles and Geeta the wife of the accused also accompanied her. It was stated that Geeta had to bring some binolas from a shop, while Laxmi the young daughter of Geeta also accompanied her as she had to go to bring grass which was meant for the cattle. While these three ladies proceeded from the house, they had gone upto a distance of about 20 paces, when Hari Ram accused came with an axe and gave two blows on the head of Bohari, which made her fall down on the ground. Thereafter he cbased Geeta and gave three blows on her head, as well as on pinna of the ear. Laxmi, the daughter, had seen this incident. She raised a hue and cry, which attracted the notice of Santa and Abdul Majid, who were working nearby in the fields. They came posthaste running and according to the prosecution, saw the accused throwing away the axe and making good his escape inside the jungle. Laxmi of course narrated the entire incident and also took the name of the assailant before these witnesses. Bohari and Geeta were then lying injured on the spot and soon thereafter they succumbed to their injuries. Thereafter Shiv Ram brother of the deceased Geeta happened to reach the spot. He sent for the Surpanch Tulsi Ram who was found coming in the way, and both of them went to P. S. Saddar Bilaspur at a distance of 26 k. m. The first information report of the incident was given by the informant Shiv Ram, who was told about the details of the occurrence by Laxmi. The F. I. R. was recorded by Mehar Singh, S. H, O. at 8.15 p. m - on that very day. He registered a case under section 302 of the I. P. Code. Thereafter the S. H. O. proceeded to the spot and started from the P. S. at about 9.15 p. m. He found the dead bodies lying on the spot and performed the inquests. He also collected blood stained earth and also found the axe Exhibit P. 1 lying on the spot. The blood stained axe as well as the earth Exhibit P. A. were duly recovered and subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner for report. The Serologist sent report subsequently that the axe Exhibit P. i was found stained with human blood The S. H. O. conducted the usual investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, The accused Hari Ram was found absconding. The two dead bodies were sent for post -mortem examination to Bilaspur and Dr. S. S. Guleria performed the two postmortem examinations on 19 -2 -1977. The doctor found two lacerated wounds on the region of head in the case of Bohari while he found again two lacerated wounds over the head of Geeta and one lacerated wound over the pinna of the ear. According to the doctor these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause their death. During his statement in court the doctor was shown the axe Exhibit P. 1 and in his opinion these injuries could be caused by the blows given by the axe, Exhibit P. 1. Subsequently the accused was traced and he was arrested on 6 -3 -1977.

(3.) On these facts and allegations a case under section 302,1. P. C was instituted against the accused Hari Ram. The defence of the accused was rather nil as he refused to reply any question put to him by the court under section 313, Cr. P. C. Since the accused did not set up any defence we may presume that he claimed innocence of the crime.