Ram Parshad vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 5174 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             RESERVED ON : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2013
                              DECIDED ON : 12th NOVEMBER, 2013

+                         CRL.A. 230/2000

       RAM PARSHAD                                     ....Appellant
               Through :         Mr. M.M.Singh, Advocate with Mr.Sunil
                                 Singh, Advocate.

                                 versus

       THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)                 ....Respondent
                Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Ram Parshad (the appellant) challenges the correctness and

legality of a judgment dated 08.03.2000 in Sessions Case No. 398/94

arising out of FIR No. 233/91 under Section 302 IPC registered at PS

Gokal Puri by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable

under Section 304 part-II IPC and awarded RI for seven years with fine `

3,000/-. The factual matrix of the case are as under :

2. Meera, (Ram Roop's sister) married to Radhey Shyam,

appellant's son, had come to stay at her parents' house on the occasion of

delivery of a son to her sister-in-law (Devrani), Rustam's wife. On the day

of incident i.e. 25.07.1991, Radhey Shyam had come to her in-laws' house

to bring her back and after some time, the appellant also came there.

Meera's brother - Raj Kumar promised to send her back after some days

as certain formalities regarding the birth of the child were yet to be

performed. Ram Parshad confronted Raj Kumar for not sending Meera

with his son - Radhey Shyam and hit him (Raj Kumar) with a danda in a

scuffle. When Ram Roop intervened, Ram Parshad took out a scissor from

the pocket and inflicted blow on Ram Roop's neck, as a result of which,

he fell down and became unconscious. Ram Roop breathed his last on the

way to GTB Hospital and was declared 'dead' on arrival. The police

machinery was set in motion after Daily Diary (DD) No.4A (Ex.PW-

15/A) was recorded at PS Gokal Puri on receiving intimation from PW-15

(Cont. Chaman Singh) about Ram Roop's admission in the hospital by his

wife. The investigation was marked to SI Baldev Singh who with

Const.Rajpal proceeded for the spot. Subsequently, the investigation was

taken over by SHO - Ram Singh Chauhan and he lodged First

Information Report after recording Raj Kumar's statement (Ex.PW-4/A).

Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. Statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was

arrested and on completion of investigation, he was charge-sheeted for

committing offence under Section 302 IPC. To establish its case, the

prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in all. In his 313 statement, the

appellant pleaded false implication and came up with the plea that Raj

Kumar had attempted to injured him with a scissor but it hit Ram Roop on

his intervention and caused his death. He was falsely implicated in an

attempt to save the actual perpetrator of crime Raj Kumar. DW-1 (Radhey

Shyam) and DW-2 (Narain Giri) appeared in his defence. On appreciating

the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the

Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held Ram Parshad, guilty of the

crime under Section 304 part-II IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is

relevant to note that State did not challenge the judgment whereby the

appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. It is admitted case of the parties that Meera married

to Radhey Shyam - appellant's son had come to stay at her parents' house

about eight days prior to the incident due to birth of a male child in the

family of her brother - Rustam. It is also not in dispute that on the day of

occurrence, Radhey Shyam and his father - Ram Parshad had come at

Meera's parents' house to take her back to the matrimonial home. Her

brothers had not agreed to send her back at that moment of time and a

scuffle ensued between Ram Parshad and Raj Kumar, in which Raj Kumar

suffered a danda blow at the hands of the appellant. Counsel for the

appellant urged that danda blow enraged Raj Kumar and he brought a

scissor from the house to inflict injuries to the appellant. Ram Roop

intervened to save Ram Parshad and the churi blow hit him and caused his

death. The prosecution witnesses have denied the allegations and have

held Ram Parshad responsible for Ram Roop's death. Counsel urged that

Raj Kumar did not take the injured to the hospital and fled the spot after

the occurrence. The injured was taken and admitted in the hospital by the

appellant and his son. Vital discrepancies in the testimonies of interested

witnesses whose concern was to save their close relative and to put the

blame upon the appellant were ignored without sound reasons. Adverse

inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding crucial

witness - Meera from appearance in Court. The appellant had no motive

to bring scissor in his pocket from his residence as his only purpose was to

bring back his daughter-in-law to the matrimonial home. The ocular

testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence. Learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor urged that statements of the relevant and material witnesses

who had witnessed the incident are consistent and there are no valid

reasons to deviate from the finding recorded by the Trial Court.

4. The crucial question to be ascertained is whether the scissor

blow was given by the appellant to Ram Roop or he sustained injuries

accidentally when allegedly, Raj Kumar attempted to injure Ram Parshad.

The occurrence took place at about 07.30 A.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 4A

(Ex.PW-15/A) was recorded at 09.18 A.M. on information given by Duty

Const. Chaman Singh regarding Ram Roop's admission in the hospital.

MLC mark 'Y' records arrival time of the patient at GTB Hospital at

09.00 A.M. It further records that Sohan Devi brought Ram Roop and

admitted him in the hospital. Statement of the complainant - Raj Kumar

was recorded and the Investigating Officer lodged First Information

Report promptly without any delay at 10.40 A.M. by making endorsement

(Ex.PW-18/A) thereon. In the statement, Raj Kumar gave vivid

description of the occurrence and specifically named Ram Parshad to have

inflicted injuries with a scissor to his brother Ram Roop. He also

attributed specific motive prompting Ram Parshad to cause injuries when

he declined to send Meera with his son Radhey Shyam that time. Since the

FIR was lodged without any delay, there was least possibility of a false

story to have been created in a short interval. FIR in a criminal case is a

vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the

evidence led at the trial. The object to insist prompt lodging of FIR is to

obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstances in which the

crime was committed. While appearing in the Court, Complainant - Raj

Kumar proved the version given to the police at the first instance without

any major variations or improvements. He deposed that when he told Ram

Parshad that Meera would be sent after performing necessary ceremonies,

Ram Parshad reacted by uttering 'Ki Tu Bahut Dada Banta Hai'.

Thereafter, Ram Parshad hit him with a danda lying nearby. Ram Roop,

Sohan Devi, Santosh and Jyoti reached there and tried to intervene in the

dispute. When his brother - Ram Roop tried to make Ram Parshad

understand that he should not pick up the dispute, he (Ram Parshad) took

out a scissor from the pocket and hit him on the left side of his neck. He

was taken in a three-wheeler scooter by his wife - Sohan Devi and Brij

Mohan to the hospital. The neighbours apprehended Ram Parshad and

gave beating to him. In the cross-examination, he disclosed that the

incident took place in the gallery near the door. He denied the suggestion

that beatings were given by them to Radhey Shyam. He fairly admitted

that he had not accompanied Ram Roop to the hospital and explained that

on the way he had gone to the police station to lodge report. He

categorically denied that he had attempted to inflict injury to Ram Parshad

with a scissor or by an accident it hit Ram Roop. On scrutinising the

complainant's deposition, it transpires that the appellant could not elicit

any vital discrepancy to disbelieve and discard his version. PW-1 (Sohan

Devi), deceased's wife also held Ram Parshad responsible for the death of

her husband - Ram Roop when he inflicted injuries with a scissor on his

neck. She denied the role assigned to Raj Kumar in attempting to inflict

injury with a scissor to Ram Parshad. She rather explained that she

pacified the quarrel that took place with Ram Parshad over sending of

Meera to her matrimonial home. She corroborated the testimony of PW-4

on all material aspects and nothing material could be extracted in the

cross-examination to disbelieve her. She had lost her husband and was not

expected to falsely implicate an innocent and to let the real culprit go scot

free. PW-5 (Santosh), Raj Kumar's wife, also deposed on similar lines.

PW-12 (Brij Mohan), a neighbour, who went to the spot after hearing the

commotion also supported the prosecution and implicated Ram Parshad

for causing injury with a scissor on Ram Parshad's neck. He had taken the

injured in a three-wheeler scooter with deceased's wife Sohan Devi to the

hospital. Being a neighbour, his presence at the spot was quite natural and

probable. All the witnesses referred above are consistent in their version

whereby specific role was attributed to the appellant for causing injuries

to the deceased with a scissor. All of them were living in a joint family

and had no history of animosity among them over any issue. It is not

believable that Raj Kumar would attempt to cause fatal injuries by a

scissor to the father-in-law of his sister Meera in the presence of his

brother-in-law Radhey Shyam.

5. Medical evidence is not in conflict or variance with ocular

evidence. PW-14 (Dr.L.T.Ramani), autopsy surgeon, proved the post-

mortem examination report (Ex.PW-14/A). Ram Roop had sustained two

incised wounds on the body which were ante mortem in nature caused by

sharp edged weapon. Injury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. The injuries were not accidental in nature. These

were caused with great force and the victim had no time to react and

succumbed to the injuries while being taken to the hospital. Ram Parshad

was medically examined after arrest on 25.07.1991 vide MLC (Ex.PW-

18/A) by Dr.R.A.Gautam at GTB Hospital. Since, he was beaten by the

public at large after the occurrence, he suffered simple injuries by blunt

object on his body. The appellant or his son Radhey Shyam appearing as

DW-1 did not explain as to how and in what manner injuries were caused

to Ram Parshad. Ram Parshad did not lodge report with the police to

accuse Raj Kumar for causing fatal injuries to Ram Roop. MLC mark 'Y'

does not record that he had taken the victim to GTB Hospital. PW-1

(Sohan Devi) whose name finds mentioned in the MLC denied Ram

Parshad to have accompanied them to the hospital. Suggestions were put

to the PWs to create an impression that relations between the brothers

were strained on some issues but there was no cogent material to infer any

animosity among them and they all lived in a joint family without any

confrontation. Ram Parshad did not give plausible explanation as to what

forced him to go to the spot to fetch his daughter-in-law when Radhey

Shyam had already gone there for that purpose. He had no occasion to hit

Raj Kumar with a danda despite his refusal to send Meera to her

matrimonial home. Discrepancies and improvements highlighted by the

appellant's counsel are inconsequential as they do not go to the root of the

case. Non-examination of Meera is not fatal. It is unclear if Meera lived

with Radhey Shyam in the matrimonial home after the occurrence. In that

eventuality, the appellant was at liberty to examine her in defence. It is

true that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all related to the

deceased. However, that itself is no ground to reject their testimonies in its

entirety. The occurrence had taken place during morning time at the

Meera's parents' house. Outsiders / neighbourers were not expected to be

present to witness the incident. There is no such universal rule as to

warrant rejection of the evidence of a witness merely because he / she was

related to or interested in the parties to either side. In such cases, if the

presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or

considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by such witness is

found in the light of surrounding circumstance and probabilities of the

case to be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction. Prior

to the occurrence, there was no animosity of these witnesses with the

appellant to falsely implicate him in the incident.

6. In the light of above discussion, the findings under Section

304 part-II IPC cannot be held unreasonable to interfere with and are

affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

Nominal roll dated 18.07.2000 reveals that he had already undergone one

year, one month and one day incarceration as on 18.07.2000 before

enlargement on bail. He is not a previous convict and has no criminal

antecedents. There was no ulterior motive for the appellant to cause death

of his close relative. The incident occurred suddenly in a heat of passion

over a trivial issue on refusal of Meera's brothers to send her to the

matrimonial home with her husband that day. Considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case, sentence order is modified and the substantive

sentence of the appellant is reduced from seven years to five years. Other

terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.

7. The appellant is directed to surrender to serve the remaining

period of sentence before the Trial court on 20th November, 2013. The

Registry shall transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 12, 2013/tr