Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S.Gill and Baldev Singh JJ.
Ram Sarup
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2003,
Decided On : OCTOBER 13, 2006
Delay in lodging FIR - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC - [DELAY IN LODGING FIR] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [Sections 302/149 IPC, Sections 323/149 IPC, Section 148 IPC] - The court discussed the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of explanation for the delay. The judgment relied on the medical evidence and the nature of injuries to modify the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case unfolded with a statement given by Atma Ram at the police station, detailing an incident where the appellants inflicted injuries on the deceased and others. The medical evidence showed injuries on the deceased and the eye-witnesses, and the court held an enquiry to determine the age of one of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and that the eye-witnesses' testimony inspired confidence. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, and the court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the FIR, the credibility of the eye-witnesses, and the nature of injuries inflicted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the medical evidence and the nature of injuries to modify the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC. It also considered the prompt lodging of the FIR as evidence of the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Sections 325 IPC and sentenced the appellants accordingly. It also directed the appellants to pay a fine as compensation to the sons of the deceased.
Mehtab S.Gill, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by Ram Sarup, Ram Niwas, Vijay Kumar, Mukesh, Virender, Vikram, Prem alias Sher Singh, Shalender, Mahender, Goni Ram and Sher Singh against the judgment/order dated 1.7.2003/5.7.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hissar whereby he convicted the appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, to further undergo RI for six months. Appellants were also convicted under Sections 323/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months. Appellants were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year.
2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PM of Atma Ram son of Mani Ram given to ASI Balbir Singh at Police Station Adampur on 10.8.2000 at 4.05 a.m. Atma Ram stated that he is living along with his family in a Dhani in his fields. On 9.10.2000 at 10 p.m., he along with his brother Rajinder, sister Geeta Devi, wife Salochna Devi, Chachi Birma Devi, Sehdev son of his Phua (fathers sisters son) were sleeping in the Dhani. His father Mani Ram was sleeping near the tubewell about 1-1/2 killas away. At about 10 p.m., Mani Ram, Het Ram, Goni, Ram Sarup, Parkash, Mahender, Sunder, Sher Singh, Neki Ram, Subhash, Virender, Gopi Ram, Laddu Ram, Vijay Singh, Shalender, Mukesh, all armed with Lathis came with a common object to the tubewell. On coming there, they raised a lalkara asking Mani Ram to call his son as they would now teach him a lesson. On hearing the lalkara, Mani Ram shouted in a loud voice saying, "Atma Ram, come running, Goni etc. have come to kill us". Complainant Atma Ram thereafter along with his brother Rajinder, Salochna, Geeta Devi, Birma Devi and Sehdev came running to the tubewell. Goni Ram etc. started giving blows to Mani Ram. Atma Ram along with others tried to rescue his father but they were also given injuries by the accused with their respective weapons. All of them broke the right leg of Mani Ram and inflicted a number of injuries on both hands and waist of Mani Ram. They also inflicted injuries to complainant Atma Ram on his head and left hand and waist. On hearing the noise, Jagdish son of Natha Ram came to the spot to rescue them, but he was also given injuries. The cause of grudge is that Mukesh, Sunder etc. with the excuse of doing exercises, used to come to the Dhani, but in fact kept a bad eye on the complainants daughters. This was objected to by the complainant. After giving injuries, accused went to their Dhani taking their weapons along with them. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex. PM-1 was recorded. Special report reached the JMIC, Hissar on 10.8.2000 at 9 a.m.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witneess-box Dr. Gopal Bhardwaj PW-1, Dr. Saroj Bhakal PW-2, Inspector Raja Ram PW-3, Om Parkash Patwari PW-4, Atma Ram PW-5, Geeta Devi PW-6, Sunder alias Rajinder alias Harjinder PW-7, Ramesh Chander PW-8, Constable Rambir Singh PW-9, Siri Bhagwan PW-10, Azad Panchi Photographer PW-11, MHC Suresh Kumar PW-12, Constable Dharambir PW-13 and ASI Balbir Singh PW-14.
4. This Court vide order dated 2.5.2006, had directed the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hissar to hold an enquiry as to whether Mukesh son of Laddu Ram was a juvenile or not on the date of occurrence. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 21.7.2006, after holding a detailed enquiry, concluded that appellant Mukesh son of Ladhu Ram on the date of occurrence was a major and not a minor.
5. Learned counsels for the appellants Shri Sanjay Vasishth, Advocate and Shri R.N. Kush, Advocate have argued that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR. The occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m. on 9.8.2000. It has come in evidence that the wall of the Civil Hospital, Adampur and that of the Police Station, Adampur is common. Statement of Atma Ram PW-5 Ex. PM on the basis of which FIR Ex. PM-1 came into existence, was recor
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
