SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sada Ram
Vs
State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2006
(B. P. Singh and Altamas Kabir, JJ)
01.08.2006
B. P. SINGH, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 534-DB of
1996 dated February 8, 2005 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant herein who was found
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, for the offence punishable
under Section 302IPC, to undergo seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and for the offence
punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that an occurrence took place at about 6.00
p.m. on June 26, 1994. The appellant shot at his father and brothers as a
result of which one of the brothers namely, Ram Dass succumbed to his injuries
while his father Arjun Singh (P.W. 2) received serious gun shot injuries. The
appellant pleaded a right of private defence which has been disbelieved by both
the Courts below.
3. We may only briefly notice the facts of the case. The appellant herein had
six brothers including the deceased Ram Dass and Ram Avtar (P.W. 1). The
appellant lived on the outskirts of the village while his father and brothers
lived in the Abadi. Two of his brothers namely, the deceased Ram Dass and
Satbir Singh had also raised some minor construction adjoining the house of the
appellant though they also lived in the village Abadi. On the date of
occurrence Arjun Singh (P.W. 2), the father of the appellant and his two
brothers had undertaken some earth work in front of their kothas adjoining the
appellant's property. It appears that on account of rain, the mud had come on
the road near the house of the appellant. At about 6.00 p.m., Arjun Singh (P.W.
2) attempted to repair the earth work to which the appellant protested and an
altercation followed between the father and the son which attracted to the
place of occurrence his other sons including Ram Avtar (P.W. 1) as also the
wife of the deceased Ram Dass. On seeing that they were coming towards him, the
appellant is alleged to have pushed and dragged his father Arjun Singh into his
courtyard. When Ram Avtar (RW. 1) and Ram Dass (the deceased) came rushing to
prevent any serious injury to their father, the appellant released his father
in the courtyard and went inside his house. He picked up his. 12 bore licensed
single barrel gun and fired a short from the window of the room. He had taken
precaution of bolting the door to provide himself sufficient protection. The
shot fired by him hit Ram Dass (the deceased) on his right side Chest and arm
and some of the pallets caused injuries to the right arm of his father Arjun
Singh (RW. 2). Both the injured were put in a tractor and taken to the Bus
Stand from where they left for General Hospital at Rewari. Ram Dass succumbed
to his injuries on the way, but Arjun Singh was removed to the Safdarjung
Hospital at Delhi.
4. Ram Avtar (RW. 1) stayed back at the General Hospital, Rewari. The hospital
authorities had sent a memo to the police authorities pursuant to which ASI Man
Singh reached the General Hospital, Rewari and recorded the statement of Ram
Avtar (P.W. 1). At about 10.00 p.m. on the basis of the said report, a formal
first information report was drawn up at 0.15 hours on the same night and the
special report was dispatched at the Illaqa Magistrate at Jhajjar which was
received by him on the same day at 2.00 A.M. ASI Man Singh inspected the place
of occurrence and picked up blood stains, pieces of card board wads and a fired
cartridge. It was later confirmed mat the cartridge had been fired from the
licensed gun of the appellant.
5. At the trial, the appellant took up the plea of right of private defence.
According to him, he had been discharged from the military service on medical
ground whereafter he came and settled down his village. He was deprived of his
share in the landed properties by his father and brothers. This gave rise to
some bitterness between him and his brothers and therefore he started living
separate from them in a house constructed by him just outside the village.
According to him, his father Arjun Singh was lifting earth in front of his
house and was digging pits. He objected to his doing so which gave rise to
altercation between him and his father. At about that time, his brothers Ram
Das (the deceased), Indraj at :, Satbir also came there. According to him,
Indraj and Satbir were carrying lathies and his brothers started beating him
with lathies. Getting scared, he rushed inside his house to save himself. He
closed the door of the courtyard of his house but his brothers pushed open the
door and followed him. All his brothers ran after him but he managed to reach
inside his house and closed the door. He warned his brothers that they were
trying to kill him but that had no effect and his three brothers attempted to
break open the door with a view to attack him. To save himself, he picked up
his licensed gun and fired from the window.
6. At the trial, Ram Avtar (P.W. 1) and Arjun Singh (P.W. 2) fully supported
the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence on record also establishes
beyond doubt that the deceased as well as Arjun Singh (P.W. 2) received the gun
shot injuries. The Trial Court as well as the High Court finding their evidence
to be reliable and further finding the defence to be untrue, convicted and
sentenced the appellant as earlier noticed.
7. It was sought to be argued before us on behalf of the appellant that the
prosecution witnesses and others were aggressors and they had in fact, entered
the courtyard of the house of the appellant which gave rise to a reasonable
apprehension in his mind that grievous hurt, if not death, may be caused. It is
the assertion of the appellant that he had been assaulted with lathies by at
least two of his brothers.
8. This plea has been negatived. It was found that the appellant had not
suffered any injury, even though he was arrested on the very next day of the
occurrence. The Courts below have also accepted the prosecution version of the
incident to the effect that it was the appellant who has pushed his father to
his courtyard. In a situation like this it was normal for the brothers of the
appellant to come to the rescue of their father who was admittedly in the
courtyard of the house of the appellant. If the brothers came to rescue their
father, it cannot be said that they were guilty of criminal trespass. The
absence of any injury on the person of the appellant clearly negatived the
theory propounded by the appellant that he had been assaulted by his brother.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had suffered 40%
disability as a result of which he had been released from the military. It is
not disputed that he was released from the military sometime in the year 1981
and the last medical test was done sometime in the year 1987. His submission is
that a person who had such disability could not have enough strength to push
his father to the courtyard of his house. We are not persuaded to accept his
submission because apart from the evidence on record, the Court itself noticed
the movement of the appellant inside the Court room and did not find any trace
of such disability as would have disabled him from pushing his father into his
courtyard. Moreover, as stated by the appellant himself, his father was trying
to do some earth work in front of his house and therefore the distance may not
have been much between the place where his father was working and his
courtyard. We find no reason to take a different view. There is no evidence to
establish that the appellant was at all assaulted with lathies by his brothers
or that he had not pushed his father into his courtyard. In fact, the appellant
admits in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that
he had an altercation with his father just in front of his house. The
prosecution evidence is thus convincing and there is no reason to doubt the
testimony of the two eye-witnesses who were no other but the brother and father
of the appellant.
9. Counsel then submitted that the appellant had suffered reasonable
apprehension that if he did not take preventive steps, his brothers may assault
him causing grievous hurt or even death. According to Counsel, the appellant
had fired only to scare them way and not to cause any injury to the appellant.
It is not possible to hold that he apprehended any serious injury to himself.
His brothers rushed to his courtyard only with a view to rescue their father. Their
conduct was natural. The submission that the appellant fired from his gun only
to scare away his brothers is ill founded. He could have fired in the sky if he
really intended to scare away his brothers, but the facts disclose that he
aimed his gun at one of his brothers causing injury to him and also injuring
his father who was just next to Ram Dass (the deceased).
10. We also cannot accept the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that
in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not intend to kill
his brother or to cause any injury to him which, in the ordinary course of
nature, would have caused his death. A person aiming a gun at another and
firing from the gun causing injury to a vital part of the body must be presumed
to intend to cause the death of that person. It is not possible to infer any
other intention in the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
the fact that the injury was caused on the chest of the deceased and not on any
non vital part of the body. The premeditation is writ large on the face of the
record. The appellant first secured himself inside his house then brought his
gun and fired. This cannot be said to be an unpremeditated act.
11.Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the
appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
J