Case: Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

The appellant, Ram Kumar, along with seven otherwas tried for the murder of deceased Balwant Singh at about 9.30 p.m. on the night of 30th September, 1982, at village Shamgarh near Nilokheri in the State of Punjab. Fivewere convicted under Section 302, read with Section 148, while the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The appeal before the High Court failed and in the application for enhancement of sentence, filed by the complainant, the High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25, 000/on the appellant. The rest of thewere acquitted. The appellant having obtained special leave to appeal has preferred this criminal appeal.Balwant Singh, deceased was the younger brother of Dalel Singh P.W. 4. They had another brother Baldev Singh, who was youngest of them all. All three of them were married and used to live separately. Their father, Mansa Ram, P.W. 5 used to reside with Baldev Singh, the youngest son. Near the house of Dalel Singh P.W. 4, there was a vacant site of land which stood in the name of Mansa Ram, father of Dalel Singh P.W. 4. This bara was the bone of contention between the complainant side and the side of the accused. Mansa Ram P.W. 5 claimed ownership and possession of this bara, while one Surta Ram, son of Chhaju Ram claimed ownership of the bara in himself. Appellant, Ram Kumar, is the son of Surta Ram. It is the case of the prosecution that a litigation regarding this bara was pending in Court since years and the trial Court had decided the same in favour of Mansa Ram. Against that decision an appeal was pending in the High Court on behalf of Surta Ram, father ofKumar. It is the further case of the prosecution that pending this appeal, Ram Kumar on behalf of his father was insisting the complainants side to vacate the bara. That two days prior to the incident, i.e. onthe appellant Ram Kumar and accused Shamsher Singh came to the bara, abused the complainant and asked them to vacate the bara. They again come onprevious day of the incident, abused them and asked them to vacate the bara. Because of these threats, theconvened a Panchayat meeting on the day of the incident, i.e.and although the accused were summoned, they did not turn up in the Panchayat. The Panchayat dispersed after waiting for two hours and then followed the fateful incident on the night of that very day. As deposed to by complainant P.W. 4, before the trial Court at about 9.30 to 10 p.m., the complainant, deceased Balwant Singh and also their father, Mansa Ram were lying on their respective cots in front side of the bara. Mansa Ram was on his cot in the door of the bara. That at that time, a fiat car of cream colour arrived there and the driver of the car brought it near the cots. Six persons alighted from the car. They included, amongst others, the appellant Ram Kumar andShamsher Singh and started abusing them. They wanted to know why they had not vacated the bara although they had insisted for two days. When Balwant Singh was in the process of getting up, the accused, except Ram Kumar challenged that a lesson should be taught to the complainant for not vacating the bara. At that juncture the appellant, Ram Kumar fired a shot from his pistol which hit Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh fell down on the ground. The complainant and his father, Mansa Ram raised an alarm. By that time, the accused persons bolted away in the said car.In connection with this incident, a police complaint was lodged. The deceased was, in the meantime, removed to the Hospital at Nilokheri in injured condition. But within half an hour, he expired in the hospital. The case which was originally registered under Section 307 was thereafter converted to Section 302 IPC. All these accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial. After recording evidence offered by the prosecution and after hearing the accused, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant and other fivewere guilty of the offences with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. It is thereafter, that in their appeal, the High Court acquitted otherbut maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and on complainants application enhanced the punishment by imposing the fine of Rs. 25, 000/on the appellant as noted earlier.

Reasoning:
5. As this is an appeal on special leave, the concurrent findings reached by both the Courts on evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside and unless it is shown that the findings are against the weight of evidence or vitiated by any error of law, normally this Court would not interfere as a matter of course with such findings. It is in that light that we have to consider the main contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of thisis, therefore, not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no occasion for this witness or even his father, Mansa Ram to sleep in this bara. It has also to be kept in view that there was bitter litigation pending in connection with the ownership of this bara between the complainants side and the accuseds side. The complainants side had succeeded in the District Court and the appeal was pending in the High Court. Even apart from that, the evidence of P.W. 4 shows that two days prior to the date of the incident, the appellant Ram Kumar and his supporters had abused them and asked them to vacate the bara and that attempt failed. The act was also repeated on the previous day and even on the date of the incident, a Panchayat had to be convened by the complainants side where the accused did not remain present and in that sequence the incident that occurred on the night of that very day had to be appreciated. When such constant threats were given by the appellants and his suppporters in connection with the bara, it would be quite natural for the witnesses to sleep with the deceased in the said bara to protect their possession. Consequently, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that these witnesses would not have been present in the bara at the time of the incident.The learned senior counsel next submitted that if the information had reachedVijender Singh P.W. 10, at about 11.10 p.m. onwhen he received the wireless message which had stated that firing was taking place at 11.08 p.m., it is not possible to believe that the firing had taken place in the bara between 9.30 to 10 p.m. and this showed that the prosecution hadthe incident. It is difficult to agree with thisour view, the aforesaid reasoning of the High Court is well sustained on evidence and therefore, it is not possible to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident was tried to beby the prosecution or that the eye witnesses would not have been present and it was a blind murder.9. It was next submitted that the medical evidence showed that the deceased had received the bullet only on the left side of his face and that would indicate that he must be sleeping when the pistol injury was given to him. Even this submission cannot be of any use to the appellant for the simple reason that being apprehensive of injury from pistol, the deceased would naturally have turned his face to avoid the injury and in the process might have been hit on the left side because only one shot was fired at the deceased.10. It was next contended that the statement Ex. DL andmade in the remand application by the police did not implicate the appellant. This submission was rightly rejected by the High Court which has observed that the English translation was defective and the original application in Hindi showed that Ram Kumar, appellant was in the company of other persons and had appeared on the scene and fired the fatal shot. Even if some other persons were mentioned in the remand applications, once the appellants name was clearly mentioned in the applications, his involvement in the incident does not get in any way lessened or obliterated. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence given by P.W. 4 in connection with what had happened on the day of the incident when Panchayat was convened and even on previous two days, could not be effectively challenged in the. It was then contended that the FIR itself appeared to be a concocted one and as such detailed averments were made therein and such detailed averments could not be written on the bus stand as alleged by P.W. 4, Dalel Singh. It is pertinent to note that nothing substantial in this connection could be taken out in theP.W. 4, is elder brother and P.W. 5, his father. In our view when the eye witnesses who were in company of the deceased at the time of the assault and who had witnessed the assault were examined there remained no occasion to examine other witnesses who obviously had come on the spot after the incident and would not have thrown any light on the actual happening of the incident. It was not the case of any one that along with the deceased and the eye witnesses there were any other witnesses present in the bara when the assault was mounted by the accused. Consequently, this argument is of no avail to the appellant.17. It was lastly submitted that the High Court ought not to have imposed the fine of Rs. 25, 000/in the application filed by the complainant. In our view, this contention cannot be of any avail for the simple reason that when the High Court found that the deceased was done away with in such a brutal manner on the night of the incident, the accused should bear the fine of Rs. 25,It could not have been said that such a discretionary order was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.18. These are the only submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no substance in any of them.