Punjab and Haryana High Court: “Doubt is Certainly Created Regarding Involvement”; Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Altered After Two Decades in Murder Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench comprising of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi and Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, disposed of two connected criminal appeals arising from the conviction of five accused in connection with the death of Tale Ram in 2004. The Court modified the conviction of Jage Ram from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, acquitted Rajesh of all charges, and reduced the convictions of Shree and Ram Bhaj to Section 323 IPC. The Court recorded, “therefore, a doubt is certainly created regarding the involvement of this accused in the occurrence” in reference to Rajesh. The Court further noted, “the present appeals stand disposed of.”
The appeals stem from the incident on 06.03.2004 in village Pakasma, where Tale Ram sustained fatal injuries. According to the prosecution, Om Singh, son of the deceased, was initially assaulted outside his home by the accused Kanwar Lal, Ram Bhaj @ Bittu, Shree, and Sanjay. The complainant alleged that Kanwar Lal took him in his grip while Ram Bhaj @ Bittu, Shree, and Sanjay inflicted injuries using jellies and a lathi.
Subsequently, accused Rajesh, Surat Singh, Dalpat @ Kasu, and Jage Ram entered the house and assaulted Tale Ram. Om Singh’s statement recorded that Rajesh gave a lathi blow to Tale Ram’s head, Dalpat @ Kasu pushed him, Surat Singh struck him on the face, and Jage Ram hit him on the elbow. Following this, Tale Ram fell unconscious and was transported to PGIMS, Rohtak.
MLR records noted that Tale Ram was “semi-conscious, disoriented, his pupils were bilaterally dilated” and he succumbed to injuries later that night. The post-mortem examination documented: “Stitched wound on parieto temporal region 7cm x 5cm., on exploration of the skull, the underline bone was found fractured. Sub dural heamotema was present. Fracture of both the bones of left forearm. Left eye blackened.” The cause of death was recorded as “shock and cardio respiratory-arrest due to the injuries, which were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature.”
Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 452, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Following Tale Ram's death, Section 302 IPC was added. The investigation included recoveries of lathis and jellies from the accused.
The defence raised a plea of alibi for Kanwar Lal and Shree and suggested an alternate version where Tale Ram accidentally fell on a 'Buggi' after an altercation. Witnesses DW4-Ram Kishan and DW5-Ramdhan supported this defence.
At trial, the Court convicted Ram Bhaj, Shree, Jage Ram, Rajesh, and Sanjay under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, alongside other offences including Section 323 and Section 449 IPC (for Jage Ram and Rajesh). Dalpat @ Kasu, Kanwar Lal, and Surat Singh were acquitted.
The High Court closely examined the contradictory statements made by Om Singh regarding Rajesh’s involvement. The Court recorded, “complainant/PW4-Om Singh has given conflicting versions as to the injury caused by Rajesh.” Further, the Bench observed, “there is no corroboration to the statement of this witness.” It added, “Therefore, a doubt is certainly created regarding the involvement of this accused in the occurrence.”
As to Jage Ram, the Court found corroboration from DW4-Ram Kishan, noting, “there is the testimony of the complainant PW4-Om Singh which is further corroborated by the deposition of DW4-Ram Kishan to the effect that it was Jage Ram who had caused the injury on the head.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent in Mehatar v. The State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated, “when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable, conviction could not be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness.” It then recorded, “in the present case, even accepting the view... that Sindhubai (PW-1) would fall within the category of partly reliable and partly unreliable, in such an event the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness.”
The Court applied this reasoning to Rajesh, concluding that the absence of corroborative evidence necessitated his acquittal.
With respect to Jage Ram, the Court noted his advanced age and recorded, “he was of the age of 77 years at the time of occurrence. He was using a lathi to support himself.” The Court further noted, “he has caused only a single injury with the said lathi on the person of the deceased without repeating the blow.”
For Shree and Ram Bhaj, the Court found that they were only attributed simple injuries on Om Singh, observing, “they did not enter the house to assault the deceased.”
The Court altered the conviction of Jage Ram, recording, “we deem it appropriate to alter his conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II of IPC.” The Court imposed “a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years” considering his age and maintained the sentence under Section 449 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently.
As to Shree and Ram Bhaj, the Court held, “we set aside their conviction under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and convict them for the offence under Section 323 IPC alone.” Their sentences were reduced to time already served.
Finally, the Court ordered, “accused Rajesh is ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.” The Court concluded, “the present appeals stand disposed of.”
Advocate representing the parties:
For the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in CRA-D-248-DB-2005: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocate and Mr. Sanskar Dhanda, Advocate
For the Appellant No.1 in CRA-D-248-DB-2005: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
For the Appellants in CRA-263-DB-2005: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana
Case Title: Ram Bhaj & Others v. State of Haryana; Sanjay & Another v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:033406-DB
Case Number: CRA-D-248-DB-2005 & CRA-263-DB-2005
Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi and Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill
[Read/Download order]
