Sudhir Kumar vs The State Of Haryana

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’), to that

under Section 304 Part­I IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for ten years. These appeals have also

questioned the reduction of sentence imposed on the other

1 accused to the period already undergone for offences punishable

under Sections 323, 506, 148 read with 149 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, an altercation

took place between the complainant’s mother, Ramrati and his

aunt, Sarli at about 5.00 p.m. on 13.03.2008. On the same day,

the accused started pelting bricks and stones upon the house of

the complainant showing solidarity with Sarli. However, the

complainant and other family members remained inside their

house out of fear. On the next day, i.e., 14.03.2008,

complainant’s mother Ramrati went to fetch water at about 2.00

p.m., and at that time, Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were sitting there and

they started threatening Ramrati with dire consequences.

Subsequently, Accused Nos. 1 to 9 carrying deadly weapons like,

jellies and iron rods approached the shop of the complainant’s

brother, Satish and threatened him also. Consequently, Satish

fled from the scene. Thereafter, all the accused came to the house

of the complainant and attacked the complainant’s father,

Balwan Singh. The complainant and his cousin were also injured

in this altercation.

2

4. The Trial Court convicted Surender @ Monu (Respondent

No. 2) son of Ved Parkash (Respondent No. 3) for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 148, 323, 506 read with 149 IPC

and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was also

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­ and to undergo

imprisonment for other offences also. All other accused were

convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 506, 148 read with 149 IPC. They were sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 149

IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year

under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Sentence of fine

was also imposed on them. As mentioned supra, the High Court

reduced the conviction of Surender @ Monu (Respondent No.2)

for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one

punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. As far as the other

accused are concerned, the High Court maintained their

conviction and but reduced the sentences to the period already

undergone by them. Hence, these appeals are filed by the

complainant.

3

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, and

having perused the records, we are not inclined to interfere with

the order passed by the High Court so far as Respondent Nos. 3

to 10 are concerned, inasmuch as the High Court, while affirming

the conviction of these accused, used its discretion judiciously to

sentence these accused for the period already undergone in jail.

So far as Respondent No.2, Surender @ Monu is concerned, there

is enough material and medical evidence placed on record to infer

that the death had occurred due to the grevious injuries inflicted

by Respondent No.2 upon the deceased.

6. Both the courts below have concurrently concluded, and

rightly so, that Surender @ Monu alone assaulted the deceased,

particularly on his head, with the iron rod. There is no reason to

disbelieve the said fact, nor the finding of fact. It is concluded by

the courts below that due to the injuries sustained by the

deceased on his head, dealt by Surender @ Monu, the deceased

had lost his life. However, in our considered opinion, the High

Court is not justified in modifying the conviction of the accused,

Surender @ Monu to the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC

inasmuch as the facts clearly reveal the intention on the part of

4 the said accused for committing the murder. The medical records

reveal that eight injuries were found on the body of the deceased

out of which three injuries were inflicted on his head. X­Ray and

CT Scan of these injuries were taken. A wound was found on the

right temporal region having length of 22 cms and it was sutured

with 16 sutures. The injuries were found with the blood vessels

cut and with profuse bleeding.

7. One of the doctors who conducted the post­mortem has

narrated the two main head injuries found on the deceased as

under:

“1. An inverted U shaped sutured wound of total length 22 cms with 16 sutures in place located at right temporal region.

2. Medial to injury 1 and 2 cms medial to it was a contusion of size 5x4 cms at mid of scalp at right parietal area. On deep dissection subcutaneous haematoma was present at site of injury 1 & 2 described extending in frontal and parietal region of both side. Extra­dural haematoma was present at operated and nearby region of size 10x10 cms irregular area. Two bony plates were in place with good apposition at operated site. Meninges were haemorrhagic at temporal­ parietal region of both sides. Blood clots were present at fissures of brain at right temporal zone. Brain matter was disfigured by blood clots.”

5

8. Merely because the accused assaulted the deceased on his

head once or twice only, it cannot be said that the offence

committed by him is under Section 304 Part­I IPC inasmuch as

the incident had not occurred on the spur of the moment. The act

of Surender @ Monu would not fall within any of the exceptions

to Section 300 IPC.

9. Having regard to the weapons used, the situs of the injuries

and the force with which the deceased was assaulted by the

accused shows clear intention on the part of the said accused to

commit murder. It would be beneficial to record the following

observations made by this Court in paras 15 and 16 of the case

Dhupa Chamar and Others v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 506,

the facts of which are similar to the facts at hand:

“15. In view of the nature of injury whereby important blood vessels were ruptured inasmuch as aorta and artery were cut and when the doctor opined that death was caused as a result of severe haemorrhage and shock due to the rupture of great veins, undoubtedly, it can be reasonable inferred therefrom that such a solitary injury inflicted upon the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

16. The above circumstances would show that the accused intentionally inflicted the injury and the same would indicate such a state of mind of the appellant Dhupa Chamar that he aimed and

6 inflicted the injury with a deadly weapon. In the absence of evidence or reasonable explanation to show that this appellant did not intend to inflict injury by bhala in the chest with that degree of force sufficient to rupture important blood vessels and cutting of aorta and other artery, it would be perverse to conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. When once the ingredient “intention is established then the offence would be murder as the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefrom, the inevitable conclusion would be that Appellant 1 Dhupa Chamar has committed the offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This being the position, we do not find that the High Court has committed any error in upholding conviction of Appellant1 Dhupa Chamar under Section 302 of the Penal Code.”

10. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the

judgment of the High Court modifying the conviction of

Respondent No. 2 under Section 304 Part­I is liable to be set

aside. Accordingly, the appeal questioning the conviction of the

Surender @ Monu for the offence under Section 304 Part­I is

allowed. The accused Surender @ Monu is convicted for the

offence under Section 302 IPC and is sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/­. If

deposited, the amount is to be made over to the legal

representatives of the deceased as compensation. If the fine is not

7 paid, the accused Surender @ Monu will undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for three years.

........................J. (N.V. RAMANA)

........................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

New Delhi, January 14, 2019

8