JAGE RAM & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

                        [2015] 11 S.C.R. 1004


A                        JAGE RAM & ORS.
                                  v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2015)
B
                         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 ofjustice 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).
                                                             c
     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
     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.

           Ajay-Bansal, AAG, Akshat Goel, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
       Gaurav Yadav, for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 B
             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
   confirmed by the High Court. Sentence under Section 325
 0
   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                                   ***

           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
 c        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.
 D        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
 E        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
 F        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
                                                                     G
2
    (1988) 4 sec 551
' (2009) 2 sec 272
• (2012) 2 sec 648
'(2013) 11 sec 3a2                                                   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
       @ Raju to pay substantial compensation to injured-Sukhbir.
 B
         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.