Ram Lal and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1985.
Petitioner: Ram Lal and Anr.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1985.
Judges: G.L. OZA, B.C. RAY & K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 14, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, section 14 – Indian Penal Code, 1860; sections 34, 302, 304 Part-I and 324 – Probation of Offenders Act, section 6 – Death by causing fatal injury – Appellants wanted the tenant to vacate the shop – Incident took place after an exchange of words – There was no previous meeting of mind nor any concerted effort – Sentence of appellant No.1 converted to one under section 304 Part I and sentenced to 8 years R.I. – Appellant No.2’s conviction under section 324 upheld but being a boy of 20 years at the time of incident, given benefit of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act against the conviction of the two appellants Ram Lal under Sec. 302 and sentence of life imprisonment and Bhag Singh under Sec. 324 and sentence of two years awarded by the Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1985 by his Judgment dated May 2, 1985.
2. It appears that the two appellants alongwith Darshan Singh and Arjun Singh went to the shop of Ram Dass who is running a shop of shoe maker and as Arjun Singh was the landlord of the premises, it appears that they went there to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises. it is not disputed that none of the appellants was carrying any arm or instrument of offence. They were all un-armed. At the shop some verbal exchange started. In that situation Ram Lal took up Rambi, which is an instrument used in shoe making and which was lying on the shop and he inflicted one blow, which unfortunately fell on the vital part of the body resulting in fatal injury. It is alleged that Bhag Singh also took Rambi which again was available readily as it was a cobbler shop and he also gave a blow. There is controversy as to whether this blow resulted in two injuries one on the eyebrow and the other on the palm. The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses P.W. 2 Ram Das, P.W. 3 Ram Swarup and P.W. 4 Darshan Singh. The First Information Report was lodged immediately. The defence version was that there was grappling between Buta Singh and Ram Lal and Rambi was in the hand of the deceased himself and because he fell down in grappling this instrument Rambi pierced in his body resulting a fatal injury. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has been believed by the trial court and which was read before us also by the learned counsel, we see no reason to disagree with the trial court when it rejected the defence version. But from the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that there was some exchange of words which resulted in aggravating the situation. It also appears that the appellants were not carrying any instrument of offence. At the spur of the moment, they picked up the instrument of offence then and there. The trial court also after considering the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that there was no previous meeting of the mind nor there was any concerted effort on the part of the appellants. This incident took place at the spur of the moment and admittedly in heat of passion. It is also clear that the appellants wanted the tenant to vacate the shop. The shop belongs to Ram Das and he was in occupation of the shop but he was not attacked.
3. In the circumstances as stated above it is clear that as a result of hot exchange between Buta Singh and Ram Lal tempers arose and Ram Lal picked up Rambi which was lying there and in heat of passion inflicted one blow. Under these circumstances in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant No.1 under Sec. 302 IPC could not be sustained. He could be convicted only under Sec. 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant No. 2 Bhag Singh is concerned, the Court below has convicted him under Sec. 324 and Sec. 34 was not invoked. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and conviction of appellant No. 1 is converted to Sec. 304 Part 1. The conviction of appellant No. 2 is maintained. As regards sentence, the appellant No. 1 is awarded a sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, who is convicted under Sec. 324 I.P.C. it appears from the Judgment and it is not disputed that at the time of incident he was a boy of 20 years. Under these circumstances he will be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Looking to these circumstances, it is directed that instead of sending him back to prison, he shall be released on furnishing a bond for good behaviour for a period of two years to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. He shall not be taken back to custody, as he has already been released on bail.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal partly allowed.
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act against the conviction of the two appellants Ram Lal under Sec. 302 and sentence of life imprisonment and Bhag Singh under Sec. 324 and sentence of two years awarded by the Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1985 by his Judgment dated May 2, 1985.
2. It appears that the two appellants alongwith Darshan Singh and Arjun Singh went to the shop of Ram Dass who is running a shop of shoe maker and as Arjun Singh was the landlord of the premises, it appears that they went there to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises. it is not disputed that none of the appellants was carrying any arm or instrument of offence. They were all un-armed. At the shop some verbal exchange started. In that situation Ram Lal took up Rambi, which is an instrument used in shoe making and which was lying on the shop and he inflicted one blow, which unfortunately fell on the vital part of the body resulting in fatal injury. It is alleged that Bhag Singh also took Rambi which again was available readily as it was a cobbler shop and he also gave a blow. There is controversy as to whether this blow resulted in two injuries one on the eyebrow and the other on the palm. The prosecution has examined three eye witnesses P.W. 2 Ram Das, P.W. 3 Ram Swarup and P.W. 4 Darshan Singh. The First Information Report was lodged immediately. The defence version was that there was grappling between Buta Singh and Ram Lal and Rambi was in the hand of the deceased himself and because he fell down in grappling this instrument Rambi pierced in his body resulting a fatal injury. Looking to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has been believed by the trial court and which was read before us also by the learned counsel, we see no reason to disagree with the trial court when it rejected the defence version. But from the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that there was some exchange of words which resulted in aggravating the situation. It also appears that the appellants were not carrying any instrument of offence. At the spur of the moment, they picked up the instrument of offence then and there. The trial court also after considering the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that there was no previous meeting of the mind nor there was any concerted effort on the part of the appellants. This incident took place at the spur of the moment and admittedly in heat of passion. It is also clear that the appellants wanted the tenant to vacate the shop. The shop belongs to Ram Das and he was in occupation of the shop but he was not attacked.
3. In the circumstances as stated above it is clear that as a result of hot exchange between Buta Singh and Ram Lal tempers arose and Ram Lal picked up Rambi which was lying there and in heat of passion inflicted one blow. Under these circumstances in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant No.1 under Sec. 302 IPC could not be sustained. He could be convicted only under Sec. 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant No. 2 Bhag Singh is concerned, the Court below has convicted him under Sec. 324 and Sec. 34 was not invoked. The appeal is therefore partly allowed and conviction of appellant No. 1 is converted to Sec. 304 Part 1. The conviction of appellant No. 2 is maintained. As regards sentence, the appellant No. 1 is awarded a sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, who is convicted under Sec. 324 I.P.C. it appears from the Judgment and it is not disputed that at the time of incident he was a boy of 20 years. Under these circumstances he will be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Looking to these circumstances, it is directed that instead of sending him back to prison, he shall be released on furnishing a bond for good behaviour for a period of two years to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. He shall not be taken back to custody, as he has already been released on bail.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal partly allowed.
