IMPORTANT POINT
Intention of the accused is essential; in gradient of section 307, IPC and it can be gathered from the kind of weapon used, nature of injuries, situs of injury and severity of the blow.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Ingredients – (i) Intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused – Intention can be gathered from the kind of weapon used, nature of injuries, situs of injury and severity of the blow – Instantly Appellant using pharsi, giving blow on the head resulting the victim becoming comatose for two days – Victim would not have survived had he not been operated – Courts below rightly convicting appellant u/s 307. (Para 14)
       AIR 2009 SC 1642 : (2009) 4 SCC 26 – Relied upon
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 r/w section 357(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 – Sentence – Compensation – Courts below awarding rigorous imprisonment of five years – Occurrence of 1994 – Appellant in custody since 2012 – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Appellant directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the victim. (Para 17, 18)
       (1988) 4 SCC 551; (2009) 2 SCC 272; (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Relied upon
       (c) Indian penal Code, 1860 – Section 325 – Appellant convicted u/s 325 and sentenced RI for 3 years – In view of the occurrence being of year 1994 and other circumstances – Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 19, 20)
       Facts of the case:
       On the fateful day i.e. 18.11.1994, at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning the complainant Jagdish along with his two sons namely Sukhbir and Mange Ram were busy in cutting pullas (reeds) from the dola of their field. At that time, Jage Ram (A-1) and his sons Rajbir Singh @ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3) and Madan (A-4) variously armed, entered the land and asked them not to cut the pullas as it was jointly held by both the parties. Jage Ram insisted that he would take away the entire pullas. In the resulting fight, Rajbir @ Raju (A-2) gave a pharsi blow on the head of Sukhbir, Jage Ram (A-1) caused injury to Jagdish (PW-5) with two jaily blows. Additionally, Madan and Rakesh attacked the complainant with lathi blows on shoulder and left elbow respectively and caused several other injuries to the complainant party.
       The Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons under Sections 307 and 325 IPC and sentenced them variously.
       The accused-appellants filed criminal appeal before the High Court which modified the judgment of the trial court thereby convicted Jage Ram (A-1) under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, convicted second accused Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for five years as well the fine of Rs.500/- was confirmed by the High Court. Sentence under Section 325 IPC (two counts) was modified as the sentence under Section 323 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. High Court modified the sentence of Madan (A-3) Rakesh (A-4) under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months (two counts) respectively.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no error in conviction. Sentence may be reduced to period already undergone.
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 19.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.181 SB of 2000, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants thereby confirming the conviction of the appellants with certain modifications.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day i.e. 18.11.1994, at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning the complainant Jagdish (PW-5) along with his two sons namely Sukhbir and Mange Ram (PW-6) were busy in cutting pullas (reeds) from the dola of their field. At that time, Jage Ram (A-1) and his sons Rajbir Singh @ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3) and Madan (A-4) armed with jaily, pharsi and lathis respectively, entered the land where the complainant was working with his sons and asked them not to cut the pullas as it was jointly held by both the parties. Wordy altercations ensued between the parties and Jage Ram insisted that he would take away the entire pullas. In the fight, the accused persons started inflicting injuries to the complainant, and his sons Rajbir @ Raju (A-2) gave a pharsi blow on the head of Sukhbir, Jage Ram (A-1) caused injury to Jagdish (PW-5) with two jaily blows. Additionally, Madan and Rakesh attacked the complainant with lathi blows on shoulder and left elbow respectively and caused several other injuries to the complainant party. Jagdish and his injured sons raised alarm, hearing which Rajesh and Usha came to rescue them and on seeing them, the accused persons fled away.

3. The injured witnesses were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Taoru where Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer, medically examined the injured persons. Injured Sukhbir was vomiting in the hospital and later on he was referred to General Hospital, Gurgaon as his condition deteriorated.

A CT scan disclosed that large extra-dural haematoma was found in the frontal region with mass effect and Sukhbir needed urgent surgery and he was operated upon and the large extra-dural haematoma was removed. Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-2) also examined the other injured persons, PW 5-Jagdish and PW 6- Mange Ram.

4. Statement of Jagdish was recorded, based on which F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Taoru, Gurgaon under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. PW 8-Ramesh Kumar (ASI) had taken up the investigation. He examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation, challan was filed under Sections 307, 325, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. In the trial court, prosecution examined nine witnesses including Jagdish-PW5, Mange Ram-PW6 and Dr. Prem Kumar-PW2 and Dr. HiIol Kanti Pal-PW9, Neuro Surgeon, PW8-investigating officer and other witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. First accused Jage Ram pleaded that on the date of occurrence-complainant party Jagdish and his sons Mange Ram and Sukhbir forcibly trespassed into the land belonging to the accused and attempted to forcibly cut the pullas. Jagdish further claims that he along with Rakesh caused injuries to the complainant party in exercise of right of private defence of property. He has denied that Rajesh and Usha had seen the incident. Raju (A-2) and Madan (A-3) stated that they were not present on the spot and they have been falsely implicated. Rakesh (A-4) adopted the stand of his father Jage Ram.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 17.2.2000 convicted all the accused persons under Sections 307 and 325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively and a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused-appellants filed criminal appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.8.2011 modified the judgment of the trial court thereby convicted Jage Ram (A-1) under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 67

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi, JJ.JAGE RAM & ORS. – AppellantsVersusSTATE OF HARYANA – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92/2015Decided On : 28-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINTIntention of the accused is essential; in gradient of section 307, IPC and it can be gathered from the kind of weapon used, nature of injuries, situs of injury and severity of the blow.

Cases Referred (5)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi, JJ.
JAGE RAM & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92/2015
Decided On : 28-01-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Intention of the accused is essential; in gradient of section 307, IPC and it can be gathered from the kind of weapon used, nature of injuries, situs of injury and severity of the blow.