Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Som Raj @ Soma – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1772 of 2008
Decided On : 22-02-2013
Facts of the Case :
Accused appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for causing death of deceased by assaulting him on his head by means of a darat. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Evidence on record showed that accused-appellant had chosen sharp side of the darat and not the blunt side. The ferocity with which said blow was struck clearly emerged from the fact that blow resulted in cutting through the skull of the deceased and caused a hole therein, resulting in exposing the brain tissue. No case of accused-appellant, that occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel or that the blow was struck in the heat of the moment. It was not even appellants case, that he had retaliated as a consequence of provocation at the hands of the deceased. The accused-appellant was an uncle to the deceased. In such circumstances, there was hardly any cause to doubt the intent and knowledge of the accused-appellant. Apart from that ,as many as five witnesses of the occurrence had stated in unison, that accused-appellant was in the process of inflicting a second blow on the deceased, when they caught hold of him, whereupon PW6 snatched the darat from the accused-appellant, and threw it away. Hence held that accused-appellant must be deemed to have committed offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 .Accused-appellant was justifiably convicted of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code .Appeal was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed
Judgment :-
JagdishSingh Khehar, J.
1. Consequent upon an intimation to the police, by Dr. B.M. Gupta (PW5), Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Indora (hereinafter referred to as the CHC, Indora); the statement of Nek Ram, (PW1) was recorded at the CHC, Indora, on 29.7.2000; leading to the registration of First Information Report bearing no.123 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Indora. The aforesaid statement was recorded by ASI Shiv Kanya (PW12). In his statement, Nek Ram (PW1) asserted that there was a ‘bhandara’ (feast for devotees, during a Hindu ceremonial congregation) following a ‘yagya’ (Hindu ritual ceremony) at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) at village Khanda Saniyal on 29.7.2000. Nek Ram (PW1) disclosed, that he along with his brother Sardari Lal (since deceased) had been invited to the ‘bhandara’ and were present at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2). The complainant Nek Ram (PW1) affirmed, that he was helping in serving food at the ‘bhandara’. Whilst he was in the kitchen at about 9.30 p.m., he (Nek Ram, PW1) was informed by his nephew Sohan (PW3) and Shamsher Singh (PW8) that the accused-appellant Som Raj alias Soma was quarrelling with his brother Sardari Lal. On being so informed, he had immediately reached the place of altercation, and had found the accused-appellant Som Raj assaulting his brother Sardari Lal. He also pointed out, that he had seen Som Raj picking up a ‘darat’ (a traditional agricultural implement used by agriculturists in northern India, for cutting branches of trees. It is also used by butches for beheading goats and sheep. The implement has a handle and a large cutting blade), from the house of Kishan Singh (PW2) and giving his brother Sardari Lal a blow with it, on the back portion of his head. After the first blow, the accused-appellant was in the process of giving a second blow when the complainant Nek Ram (PW1) along with others present at the place of occurrence, had caught hold of him. The ‘darat’ was then snatched from his hands. According to Nek Ram (PW1), blood was oozing from the injury suffered by Sardari Lal. Accordingly, Sardari Lal was immediately taken to the CHC, Indora. Sardari Lal had reached the hospital at about 10.45 p.m. He was declared dead at about 11.15 p.m.
2. Consequence upon the registration of First Information Report no.123 of 2000 at Police Station, Indora, on 29.7.2000, the Police initiated investigation into the matter. On completion of the same, the accused-appellant was sent to face trial for commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including six witnesses of occurrence (Nek Ram - PW1, Kishan Singh - PW2, Sohan - PW3, Mohinder Singh - PW6, Vakil Singh - PW7 and Shamsher Singh - PW8). The prosecution also examined two doctors who had examined Sardari Lal when he was taken to the CHC, Indora. One of them had treated Sardari Lal when he was brought to the CHC, Indora, whereas the other had conducted the post mortem examination. The other witnesses were formal police witnesses. The prosecution also produced various exhibits to prove the charge leveled against the accused-appellant.
3. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the prosecution had concluded its evidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant projected a different version of the incident. According to the accused-appellant, there was an altercation between his brother Hari Singh (DW5) at the entrance of the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) during which a “gorkha” (a Nepali living in India) named Rana gave a ‘darat’ blow to his elder brother Hari Singh (DW5) which accidentally hit the deceased Sardari Lal. He further stated, that information about the occurrence (as narrated by him) was given by his brother Hari S
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
