IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 411-DB of 1998 Date of Decision : 10.01.2008 Parweshwar and others. … Appellants Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The appellants (Parveshwar son of Duni Chand, Duni Chand son of Sula Ram and Jai Ram son of Kundi Lal) were tried for an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, accused Parveshwar was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; while the other two (Duni Chand and Jai Ram) were convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In a commonness of approach on point of sentence, all the appellants were directed to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 1998 Ramesh Kumar deceased, who is father of Raj Kumari complainant/first information (PW3), was dealing with the business of Bardana. On 15.07.1997, he had been gone to vegetable market, Kapurthala, in connection with his business. On return to his house, he informed PW3 that the appellants had quarrelled with him in the course of his visit to the vegetable market. At about 8.15 A.M., the three appellants came over outside the house of Ramesh Kumar. At that time, appellant Parveshwar was carrying a Chhuri (an instrument meant for cutting threads of gunny bags). There, they started raising lalkara and hurling abuses at Ramesh Kumar, who came out of his house. He was closely followed by PW3-Raj Kumari and Tulsi Dass, a younger brother of Ramesh Kumar. Ramesh Kumar called upon the appellants to indicate why they were abusing him. On this, appellants Duni Chand and Jai Ram, who were not carrying any weapon, caught hold of him and gave him fist blows. Appellant-Parveshwar gave a chhuri blow on the neck of Ramesh Kumar. On account thereof, Ramesh Kumar fell down in the middle of the road. The appellants fled the spot. The hue and cry raised by Raj Kumari and Tulsi Dass brought Mst. Sonia to the spot. Ramesh Kumar was declared brought dead at Civil Hospital, Kapurthala. Ramesh Kumar was done away with on account of professional/ business rivalry as he and the appellants were both in the business of Bardana and there used to be constant friction between them. The learned Trial Judge recorded a finding of conviction by placing implicit reliance upon the testimony on oath of PW3-Raj Kumari and PW4-Tulsi Dass. The finding in the context is that in spite of “long and searching cross-examination” having been directed them, the credit of those witnesses could not be impeached. 2 Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 1998 Insofar as the appellants-Duni Chand and Jai Ram are concerned, there is not even an allegation that they were carrying any weapon when they came outside the house of Ramesh Kumar. The only role attributed to them is that they gave fist blows to Ramesh Kumar. The attribution of that role is not corroborated by any medical evidence. As per the allegations, the appellants were three in number and one out of them was carrying a Chhuri. As against it, Ramesh Kumar was not carrying any weapon. If there was even an iota of truth in the role attributed to the appellants-Duni Chand and Jai Ram, one would have expected that there would be some marks of injuries on the person of Ramesh Kumar as well in view of large number of fist blows given by the appellants to him. The medical testimony is not supportive of any such injuries. In view, thus, of the nature of role attributed to them and the fact that they were not carrying any weapon and also the fact that the medical evidence is not supportive of their role, the possibility of their false implication is apparent. In the light thereof, the appeal filed by Duni Chand and Jai Ram shall stand allowed. They shall stand acquitted. The bonds furnished by them shall stand discharged. Mr. A.S. Kalra, the learned counsel for the appellants, assails the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge qua Parveshwar-appellant by arguing that it could, at the most, be a case of commission of an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In the context, reliance is placed upon the fact that the appellant-Parveshwar had given only one Chhuri blow to Ramesh Kumar. The plea raised thereby is that if appellant- Parveshwar had the intention to cause death of Ramesh Kumar, he would have given him a larger number of blows. 3 Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 1998 The plea does not merit acceptance. The number of blows is not the exclusive factor determinative of the intention of the assailants. The nature of the weapon used and the seat of the injury would be very relevant factors in the context. In the present case, as per the proven allegations, appellant-Parveshwar had given a Chhuri blow on the neck of Ramesh Kumar. As a measure of ordinary prudenceness, he could be deemed to have been cognizant of the fact that giving of a blow by the indicated weapon and on the neck of the persons assaulted was likely to cause an injury resulting him in latter’s death. It cannot, thus, be said with any amount of justification that the present case calls for conversion of the offence from an offence under Section 302 to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the appellants further argues that the prosecution had levelled a false allegation that Parveshwar and his two alleged associates committed the crime in furtherance of common intention of them all. The plea raised is infructuous on the face of it in view of the fact that appellants-Duni Chand and Jai Ram have already been ordered to be acquitted of charge and appellant-Parveshwar is being held accountable for his individual act. It is, then, urged that the appellant-Parveshwar had been falsely implicated in this case on account of professional rivalry. The prosecution has not at all endeavoured concealment of the fact that the impugned occurrence is a result of professional jealousy. In fact, on the own showing of the complainant, it was a case of professional 4 Crl. Appeal No. 411-DB of 1998 jealousy. The motive cuts both ways, as per the aged old edge. Ramesh Kumar was done away with on account of professional rivalry only. We have been taken through the testimony on oath of PW3-Raj Kumari and PW4-Tulsi Dass. We find that they had given absolutely clear, clinching and unambiguous presentation of the manner in which the impugned incident had taken place. Their credit at the trial does not appear to have been impeached at all. The medical evidence is fully in accord with the ocular version. No other point has been argued. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal shall stand allowed to the extent it relates to Duni Chand and Jai Ram. The appeal filed by Parveshwar-appellant shall stand dismissed. The judgment recorded by the learned Trial Judge shall stand affirmed qua appellant-Parveshwar. Appellant-Parveshwar shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. ( S.D. ANAND ) JUDGE January 10, 2008 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) vkd JUDGE Note : Whether referred to Reporter : Yes/No 5