JAGE RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 1004, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 1004 
JAGE RAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2015) 
JANUARY 28, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- s. 307 - Prosecution case that PW-
C 5 and his two sons 'S' and 'PW-6 were cutting pullas (reeds) 
in their fields when the accused party went there and asked 
them not to cut the pullas - In the wordy altercation, second 
accused gave pharsi blows on the head of'S' - Conviction of 
second accused u/s.307 IPC by Courts below- Challenged, 
D on ground that evidence of the witnesses suffers from material 
discrepancy and is self-contradictory; and additionally, the 
defence plea of private defence was not considered by the 
courts below in proper perspective - Held: PWs 5 & 6 have 
clearly spoken about the overt act of the accused - PWs 5 
E and 6 being injured witnesses, their evidence is entitled to 
great weight- Evidence of PWs 5 and 6 amply corroborated 
by medical evidence - Evidence that had not surgical 
assistance been given to 'S', he would have definitely died 
- Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head 
F injuries to 'S', nature of injures, situs of the injury and the 
severity of the blows, conviction of 2nd accused u/s.307 IPC 
was justified. 
Sentence I Sentencing- Second accused gave pharsi 
G blows on the head of the victim- Convicted uls.307 IPC and 
sentenced to RI of five years -Appropriate punishment -
Held: Question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion 
-
W~at sentence would meet the ends of justice would depend 
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the courts 
H 
1004

JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1005 
must keep in mind the gravity of the offence, motive for the A 
crime, nature of the offence and all ·other attendant 
circumstances - Jn the case in hand, the incident occurred 
more than 20 years back in the heat of passion in course of 
a wordy altercation -Accused surrendered in 2012 and is in 
custody since then, for more than three years - Period of B 
sentence imposed upon second accused reduced to three 
years aparl from directing him to pay Rs. 7. 50 lakhs as 
compensation to the victim - Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973-s.357(3). 
State of M.P vs. Kashiram & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 
1642 = (2009) 4 SCC 26; State of M.P. vs. Bablu 
Natt (2009) 2 SCC 272; Alister Anthony Pareira 
vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and 
c 
Soman vs. State of Kera/a (2013) 11 SCC 382-
D 
relied on. 
Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 
551 - referred to. 
E 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 2009 SC 1642 
relied on 
Para 13 
(1988) 4 sec 551 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2009) 2 sec 212 
relied on 
Para 16 
F 
(2012) 2 sec 648 
relied on 
Para 16 
(2013) 11 sec 382 
relied on 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal G 
Appeal No. 92 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2011 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
Appeal No. 181 SB of 2000 
H
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Vibha Datta Makhija, Gagan Gupta for the Appellants. 
B 
Ajay-Bansal, AAG, Akshat Goel, Kamal Mohan Gupta, 
Gaurav Yadav, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against 
the judgment dated 19.8.2011 passed by the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.181 SB of 2000, 
whereby the High Court partly altowed the appe"al filed by the 
C appellants thereby confirming the conviction of the appellants 
with certain modifications. 
2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the 
fateful day i.e. 18.11.1994, at about 8.00A.M. in the morning 
D the complainant Jagdish (PW-5) along with his two sons namely 
Sukhbir and Mange Ram (PW-6) were busy in cutting pullas 
(reeds) from the do/a of their field. Atthat time, Jage Ram (A-
1) and his sons Rajbir Singh@ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3) and 
Madan (A-4) armed with jaily, pharsi and lathis respectively, 
E entered the land where the complainant was working with his 
sons and asked them not to cut the pullas as it was jointly 
held by both the parties. Wordy altercations ensued between 
the parties and Jage Ram insisted that he would take away 
F 
the entire pullas. In the fight, the accused persons started 
inflicting injuries to the complainant, and his sons Rajbir @ 
Raju (A-2) gave a pharsi blow on the head of Sukhbir, Jage 
Ram (A-1) caused injury to Jagdish (PW-5) with two jailyblows.
Additionally, Madan and Rakesh attacked the complainant with 
G lathi blows on shoulder and left elbow respectively and caused 
several other injuries to the complainant party. Jagdish and 
his injured sons raised alarm, hearing which Rajesh and Usha 
came to rescue them and on seeing them, the accused persons 
fled away. 
H
JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1007 
3. The injured witnesses were taken to the Primary Health A 
Centre, Taoru where Dr. Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer, 
medically examined the injured persons. Injured Sukhbirwas 
vomiting in the hospital and later on he was referred to General 
Hospital, Gurgaon as his condition deteriorated. A CT scan 
disclosed that large extra-dural haematoma was found in the 
B 
frontal region with mass effect and Sukhbir needed urgent 
surgery and he was operated upon and the large extra-dural 
haematoma was removed. Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-2) also 
examined the other injured persons, PW 5-Jagdish and PW 
6- Mange Ram. 
C 
4. Statement of Jagdish was recorded, based on which 
F.1.R. was registered at Police Station Taoru, Gurgaon under 
Sections 323, 324, 325 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 
PW 8-Ramesh Kumar (ASI) had taken up the investigation. 
D 
He examined the witnesses and after completion of 
investigation, challan was filed under Sections 307, 325, 324 
read with Section 34 IPC. In the trial court, prosecution 
examined nine witnesses including Jagdish-PW5, Mange 
Ram-PW6 and Dr. Prem Kumar-PW2 and Dr. Hilol Kanti Pal-
E 
PW9, Neuro Surgeon, PWB-investigating officer and other 
witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 
Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. 
First accused Jage Ram pleaded that on the date of F 
occurrence-complainant party Jagdish and his sons Mange 
Ram and Sukhbir forcibly trespassed
into the land belonging 
to the accused and attempted to forcibly cut the puflas. Jagdish 
further claims that he along with Rakesh caused injuries to the 
complainant party in exercise of right of private defence of G 
property. He has denied that Rajesh and Usha had seen the 
incident. Raju (A-2) and Madan (A-3) stated that they were. 
not present on the spot and they have been falsely implicated. 
Rakesh (A-4) adopted the stand of his father Jage Ram. 
H
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, 
the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 
17 .2.2000 convicted all the accused persons urider Sections 
307 and 325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for five years and one year respectively and a 
B fine of Rs. 500/- each with default "clause. Aggrieved by the 
said judgment, the accused-appellants filed criminal appeal 
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court 
vide impugned judgment dated 19.8.2011 modified the 
judgment of the trial court thereby convicted Jage Ram (A-1) 
C under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for one year, convicted second accused Rajbir 
@ Raju under Section 307 IPC and imposed sentence of 
imprisonment for five years as well the fine of Rs.500/- was 
0 
confirmed by the High Court. Sentence under Section 325 
IPC (two counts) was modified as the sentence under Section 
323 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous 
imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run 
concurrently. High Court modified the sentence of Madan (A-
E 3) Rakesh (A-4) under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months (two counts) 
respectively. 
In this appeal, the appellants assail the 
correctness of the impugned judgment. 
F 
6. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel 
appearing for the appellants contended that
the evidence of 
the witnesses suffers from material discrepancy and is self-
contradictory. It was submitted that injured witness Sukhbir 
was not examined in the court and neither CT Scan nor x-ray 
G nor operational notes of Sukhbir were produced before the 
court and in the absence of such material evidence, courts 
below erred in convicting the second accused under Section 
307 IPC. Additionally, the learned counsel contended that the 
defence plea of private defence was not considered by the 
H courts below in proper perspective.
JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1009 
[R. BANUMATHI, J] 
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the A 
respondent-State contended that the evidence of_ all the 
witnesses satisfactorily establishes the overt act of the accused 
persons and Jagdish (PW-5) and Mange Ram (PW-6) being 
the injured witnesses, the veracity of these witnesses cannot 
be doubted. It was submitted that the medical evidence B 
sufficiently corroborated the oral evidence and the prosecution 
has established the intention of the 2nd accused in causing 
attempt to commit murder of Sukhbir and in appreciation of 
the evidence, courts below recorded concurrent findings 
convicting the second accused under Section 307 IPC and C 
the samewarrants no interference. 
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and 
gone through the impugned judgment and perused the 
materials on record. 
D 
9. As it emerges from the evidence, complainant Jagdish 
(PW-5) and his two sons Sukhbir and Mange Ram were cutting 
pullas. The accused party went there and asked them not to 
cut the pul/as. In the wordy altercation, second accused Rajbir E 
@ Raju gave pharsi blows on the head of Sukhbir. PWs 5 & 
6 have clearly spoken about the overt act of the accused that 
A-1 Jage Ram attacked and caused injury to PW-5 Jagdish 
with jaily blows and that second accused Rajbir @ Raju 
attacked on the head of Sukhbir with pharsi. They have also 
F 
stated that Madan and Rakesh caused injuries to PW5-
Jagdish with
Jathi on shoulder and left elbow respectively. PW 
2- Dr. Pardeep Kumar in his evidence stated that he has 
examined PWs 5 and 6 and noted the injuries on the body of 
PWs 5 and 6 and issued wound certificates. Evidence of PWs G 
5 and 6 is amply corroborated by medical evidence. PWs 5 
and 6 being injured witnesses, their evidence is entitled to great 
weight. 
Cogent and convincing grounds are required to 
discard the evidence of injured witnesses. In the light of the H
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
fact that PWs 5 and 6 were injured witnesses, courts below 
tested their evidence for its credibility and recorded concurrent 
findings that PWs 5 and 6 are trustworthy witnesses. We find 
no reason to take a different view. 
s 
10. Appellants have raised the contention that the 
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that A-2 Rajbir 
attempted to commit murder of Sukhbir. It was submitted that 
injured person Sukhbir was neither examined nor medical 
evidence like CT Scan, x-ray and operational notes and 
C Sukhbir were produced to corroborate the oral evidence and 
while so courts below erred in convicting second accused 
Rajbir@ Raju under Section 307 IPC. 
11. Dr. Pardeep Kumar-PW-2, who examined Sukhbir 
D found during his medico-legal examination a lacerated wound 
in the middle of the top of the skull. lnjured-Sukhkbir was found 
vomiting in the hospital and he was examined by a Neuro 
Surgeon Dr. Hilol Kanti Pal (PW-9) of Safdarjung Hospital, 
Delhi on 19 .11 .1994, i.e. the day after the incident. PW-9 has 
E stated that Sukhbir was unconscious since 2.00 P.M. on 
18.11.1994 and was deeply comatose with irregularity of pupils 
and a laceration was diagnosed on the right front parietal 
region. Further, PW-9 has stated that during the CT scan, it 
was revealed that a large extra-dural haematoma was present 
F in the frontal region with mass effect and to avoid further 
deterioration of his condition, he was operated
upon by frontal 
trephine craniopmy an haematoma measuring about 125 ml 
was evacuated. PW-9 stated that had not the operation been 
conducted on Sukhbir and had not the extra-dural haematoma 
G removed by operation urgently, the head injury caused to 
Sukhbir would have caused his death. As noted by the High 
Court, it is thus brought on evidence that had not surgical 
assistance been given to Sukhbir, he would have definitely 
died. 
H
JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1011 
[R. BANUMATHI, J] 
12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, A 
prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder 
and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the 
prosecution that accused had attempted to commit the murder · 
of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person 
intended to commit murder of another person would depend B 
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a 
conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal 
injury capable of causing death should have been caused. 
Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of 
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the C 
accused, such intention may also be adduced from other 
circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered 
from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, 
words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive 0 
of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused 
and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc. 
13. In the case of State of M.P vs. Kashiram & Ors. 1, 
the scope of intention for attracting conviction under Section 
307 IPC was elaborated and it was held as under:-
E 
"13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 
307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt 
act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury 
capable of causing death should have
been inflicted. The 
F 
section makes a distinction between the act of the 
accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether 
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the 
intention or knowledge and under circumstances 
mentioned inthe section. Therefore, an accused charged G 
under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely 
because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the 
nature of a simple hurt. 
1 AIR 2009 SC 1642; (2009) 4 sec 26 
H
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 11 S.C.R.. 
A 
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra 
v. Bairam Barna Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28, Girija Shanker 
v. State ofUP(2004) 3 SCC 793 and R. Prakash v. State 
ofKarnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
* * * 
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that 
death will be caused is a question of fact and would 
depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances 
that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor 
will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. 
The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, 
as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury." 
See State of M.P v. Saleem (2005) 5 SCC 554 pp. 
559-60, paras 11-14 and 16. 
13. "6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence 
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine 
the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society 
could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, 
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper 
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and 
the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. 
This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in 
Sevaka Perumalv. State of TN.(1991) 3 SCC 471." 
14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the 
head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury 
and the severity of the blows, courts below recorded concurrent 
G findings convicting the 2nd appellant under Section 307
IPC. 
In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant 
Rajbir@ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable. 
15. Learned counselfor the appellants contended that 
H the second appellant is in custody for more than three years
JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1013 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
and since the occurrence was in the year 1994, prayed for A 
reduction of the sentence imposed on the second appellant to 
the period already undergone. Placing reliance upon the 
judgment of this Court in Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors2., 
learned counsel for the appellants additionally submitted that 
in terms of Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. that the compensation 
B 
may be awarded to the victim and the sentence be modified 
to the period already undergone. 
16. For the conviction under Section 307 IPC, courts 
below imposed upon the 2nd appellant rigorous imprisonment C 
of five years, while imposing punishment, courts have an 
obligation to award appropriate punishment. Question of 
awarding sentence is a matter of discretion and the same 
has to be exercised by the courts taking into consideration all 
the relevant circumstances. What sentence would meet the D 
ends of justice would depend upon the facts and circumstances 
of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity of 
the offence, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all 
other attendant circumstances. Vide State of M.P. vs. Bablu 
Naff; Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra• and 
E 
Soman vs. State of Kerala 5. 
17. In the light of the above, considering the case in hand, 
the occurrence was of the year 1994 when the complainant 
party was cutting pullas, the accused asked them not to cut F 
the pullas which resulted in
the wordy altercation. In the heat 
of passion, the accused have caused injuries to the 
complainant party. The second accused Rajbir@ Raju is in 
custody. He surrendered on 5.1.2012 and is stated to be in 
2 (1988) 4 sec 551 
' (2009) 2 sec 272 
• (2012) 2 sec 648 
'(2013) 11 sec 3a2 
G 
H
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
custody since then, for more than three years. Having regard 
to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered 
view, the period of sentence of five years may be reduced to 
three years apart from directing the second appellant Rajbir 
B 
@ Raju to pay substantial compensation to injured-Sukhbir. 
18. As noticed above, injured-Sukhbir sustained grievous 
head injuries and was deeply comatose and was in a state of 
shock and trauma. Learned counsel for the injured-witness 
submitted that for quite some time injured-Sukhbir was 
C unconscious and thereafter suffering from mental trauma. 
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by Sukhbir 
and the period of treatment and other circumstances, we are 
of the view that, it would be appropriate to direct second 
appellant-accused Rajbir@ Raju to pay Rs.7,50,000/- as 
D compensation to the injured-Sukhbir. When the matter came 
up for hearing on 14.10.2014, learned counsel for the 
appellants informed the Court that he had offered Rs.5,00,000/ 
- by way of demand dtaft towards compensation to the injured-
Sukhbir in the presence of the Sarpanch of the village which 
E he has refused to receive the same. The said amount of 
Rs.5,00,000/- is now kept in fixecl deposit in the Registry of 
this Court. 
19. For inflicting blows on PW-5 Jagidsh withjai/y A-1 
F Jage Ram was convicted under Section 325 IPC and 
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
A-
3 and A-4 have also given lathis blows to PW-5 and were 
convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for three months by the High Court. 
G Having regard to the fact that the occurrence was of the year 
1994, considering the other facts and circumstances of the 
case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Jage Ram 
(A-1 ), Madan (A-3) and Rakesh (A-4) is reduced to the period 
H already undergone by them.
JAGE RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1015 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
20. The conviction of A-1 under Section 325 IPC, A-3 A 
and A-4 under Section 323 IPC is confirmed and the sentence 
is reduced to the period already undergone by each of them. 
The conviction of second accused Rajbir@ Raju under Section 
307 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment of 
. 
. 
five years is reduced to the period already undergone and 
B 
additionally the second accused shall pay a compensation of 
Rs.7,50,000/-to the injured witness-Sukhbir. Compensation 
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited .in this Court by the 2nd 
appellant shall be paid to the injured witness-Sukhbir. The 
second accused Rajbir @ Raju shall deposit the balance C 
compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before the trial court 
within three months from the date of this judgment and on 
such deposit, the same shall also be paid to the injured witness-
Sukhbir. On failure to deposit the balance compensation, the 0 
second appellant Rajbir@ Raju shall undergo defa_ult sentence 
of one year. 
21. The appeal is allowed to the above said extent. 
Second appellant Rajbir @ Raju is ordered to be released 
forthwith if not required in any other case .. Bail bonds of E 
accusedA1 ,A3 andA4 shall stand discharged. 
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 
Appeal disposed of.