Sarup Singh and Giani Ram vs State of Haryana, Represented By The Home Secretary

1. Special leave granted limited to the question of nature of offence and the sentence.

2. Jai Karan deceased was given a hammer blow on his head by the appellant. He along with his father and brother Sat Narain were tried for committing the said murder. The Trial Court relied upon the testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW8 and convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and his brother and father for an offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The High Court on appeal set aside the conviction and sentence of the father and brother of the appellant. The High Court also acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. but found him guilty of an offence under Section 307. I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default one month R.I.

3. In our opinion, the guilt of the appellant for causing an injury to Jai Karan stands amply established from the prosecution evidence on the record. The only question which requires consideration is the nature of the offence committed by the appellant and the sentence.

4. According to the evidence of P.W. 11, Dr. S. K. Khanna of the Maulana Azad Medical College who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, who died on 25-1-1989 about 4 months after the occurrence the cause of death was hydrocephalus and septicimia. According to Dr. Gupta, P.W. 2, who had operated upon the deceased on 15-9-1988, during the operation he had found d fracture of bone of right temporopurietal region. Keeping in view this medical evidence and the established facts and circumstances of the case on the record, we are of the opinion, that the appellant can be clothed with the knowledge that the injury that he was causing to Jai Karan, with a hammer on his head, a vital part of the body, was likely to cause his death, though without any intention to cause death or such injury as was likely to cause his death. He gave a single blow on the head of the deceased. The offence would, therefore, squarely fall under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. We. accordingly hold him guilty of the said offence and convict him accordingly.

5. The appellant after his conviction for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. by the High Court has been in custody for over one year. He has also remained in custody for sometime during the investigation of the case and the trial. After hearing learned Counsel for the complainant, we consider that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him but in addition he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. to be paid to the widow of the deceased. The fine shall be deposited in the Trial Court within one week and shall on such deposit being made be paid to Smt. Sunhori, widow of deceased Jai Karan. On deposit of the line of Rs. 20.000/- in the Trial Court the appellant shall be released from custody forthwith. However, in case the fine of Rs. 20,000/- payable by way of compensation under Section 357, Cr.P.C. is not deposited in the Trial Court the appellant shall undergo a sentence of, 4 years R. I. for the offence under Section 304, Part-11, I.P.C. With the above modification of the conviction and the sentence the appeal is disposed of.

6. In view of the disposal of the appeal the Special Leave Petition No. 3029/94 also stands disposed of.