Subhash vs State Of Haryana

3. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 9.10.1991 Raghbir Singh(deceased) along with Mane Ram (PW-8) after collecting 'Barma' (an instrument for drawing out water) from Nand Lal (PW-5) resident of village Kailana left for their village- Mandi at about 12 noon on a Swaraj make tractor. On the way when they reached at village Pugthala they purchased half bottle of liquor from a liquor vend. Raghbir Singh (deceased) purchased a nip of liquor separately and carried it with him. Subhash (appellant- accused) along with son of Basu Sardar and Jai Kumar met Raghbir Sing (deceased) and Mane Rame (PW -8) near the village Chamrara. Son of Basu Sardar took the nip of liquor from Raghbir Singh (deceased) and consumed the same. Thereafter all accused persons went to the house of son of Basu Sardar and again consumed illicit liquor. After consuming illicit liquor they came back at the place where they had met Mane Ram (PW-8) and Raghbir Singh (deceased). An altercation took place among son of Basu Sardar, Subash (appellant-accused) and Jai Kumar wherein the son of Basu Sardar inflicted injury upon the head of Subhash (appellant-accused) and fled away. Subhash (appellant-accused) was brought to the village Pugthala in order to get his wound dressed up from a doctor on the tractor of Amar Singh being driven by Joginer Singh (accused). Thereafter Joginder (accused) took the tractor towards village Bajana on the bank of canal. When they reached near the bridge of canal in the village Kasandi Joginder accused stopped the tractor on which the accused persons started robbing of money from the pocket of Raghbir Singh (deceased). It was about 8.00 P.M. Enraged by the intervention of Mane Ram (PW-8) all the accused persons caught hold of Mane Ram and pressed his neck and threw him into the canal. Thereafter accused persons caught hold of Raghbir Singh (deceased) by his legs and also threw him into the same canal. Raghbir Singh (deceased) tried to catch hold of the grass grown on the bank of the canal. Jai Kumar (accused) and Joginder Singh (accused) gave leg blows on the face of Raghbir Singh and again thrown into the water and he did not come out of the canal. Mane Ram (PW-8) knew swimming and came out of the canal after having covered a distance of three acres and narrated the incident to Jai Singh a resident of village Kasandi. Thereafter, Mane Ram (PW-8) along with Jai Singh searched for Raghbir Singh (deceased) and the tractor belonging to Amar Singh (PW- 6) but they could not find them. Then Mane Ram (PW-8) and Jai Singh went to village Mandi. It was about mid-night. They narrated the occurrence to father of Raghbir Singh (deceased). They went to the city police station, Gohana. Police party along with Mane Ram (PW-8) and Jai Singh reached at the place of occurrence at about 10.00 A.M on 10.10.1991 and recorded the statement of Mane Ram (PW-8). Based on the statement of Mane Ram (PW-8) the Police Station Gohana issued first information report and registered a P.S. Case No. 259 on 10.10.1991 under Section 392 read with Section 397 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 392 read with 397 IPC and under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against all the accused including the appellant. The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-11) and got marked various documents in evidence. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he took the stand that he was innocent and falsely implicated of the charge leveled against him

5. The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of evidence available on record found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 and 302 read with 34 IPC and the same was affirmed by the High Court.

15. For all the aforesaid reasons we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction under Section 392 read with 397 IPC for having robbed money and tractor. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for each of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 IPC is accordingly upheld.

16. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for having caused death of Raghbir (deceased)? The evidence available on record does not suggest that there has been any intention of causing the death of Raghbir (deceased).The case falls under Part II of Section 304 IPC. The appellant committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant is accordingly convicted under Part II of Section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The sentences to run concurrently.

17. It is brought to our notice that the appellant has already served the sentence of 7= years rigorous imprisonment. Sentence already undergone is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. He is accordingly directed to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

18. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.