-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
When the Law Judges Intent, Not Just Consequence, Justice Prevails – Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a landmark ruling in Ram Bhaj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, overturning murder convictions and re-evaluating culpability in a family feud-turned-fatal altercation. The court held that while Jage Ram did strike the deceased with a lathi on the head, the attack lacked premeditation, and therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The life sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
In a further development, the court acquitted Rajesh, citing inconsistencies in witness testimony that raised serious doubts about his involvement. The other two accused, Shree and Ram Bhaj, were also cleared of murder charges and convicted only under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries, with their sentences reduced to the time already served.
The case arose from an altercation on March 5, 2004, between the children of the complainant’s family and those of the accused, which was initially resolved amicably. However, tensions reignited the next morning.
According to the prosecution, at 7:00 AM on March 6, 2004, Om Singh, the complainant, was returning home when he was allegedly surrounded and attacked by the accused. He claimed that Kanwar Lal held him while Ram Bhaj and Shree struck him on his flanks, and Sanjay hit him with a lathi on the left eye.
As per his statement, his father Tale Ram, hearing the commotion, came out of the house to intervene. At this point, Jage Ram, Rajesh, Surat Singh, and Dalpat allegedly entered the house and assaulted him. Jage Ram, he stated, struck Tale Ram on the head with a lathi, while the others pushed and hit him on various parts of his body.
The victim fell unconscious and was rushed to PGIMS Rohtak hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries at 3:45 AM the next day.
An FIR was registered under Sections 307, 323, 506, 452, 148, and 149 IPC, later adding Section 302 IPC after Tale Ram’s death.
Court’s Observations: Doubts and Contradictions in Prosecution’s Case
The defense challenged the prosecution’s version, arguing that inconsistent witness testimony and lack of forensic corroboration weakened the case.
The court noted that the initial FIR had attributed the fatal head injury to Rajesh, but in a subsequent supplementary statement, the complainant changed his version and shifted the blame to Jage Ram. This contradiction severely undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
The court found that witness Om Singh’s statements were inconsistent, raising serious doubts about whether he had actually witnessed the assault on his father. It further observed that Raj Singh (PW-5), another alleged eyewitness, had only seen the attack on Om Singh outside the house and could not have seen the assault on the deceased inside the house.
Additionally, the court noted that the weapons recovered from the accused could not be conclusively linked to the injuries. Given these contradictions and the absence of corroborative evidence, the court ruled that there was no reliable proof against Rajesh, leading to his acquittal.
"One Blow, No Intention to Kill" – Court Reduces Jage Ram’s Conviction
While the court found Jage Ram guilty of causing the fatal head injury, it emphasized that the act was not premeditated.
Citing Mehatar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 216), the court reaffirmed that when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable, conviction cannot be based on their testimony alone unless corroborated by other evidence.
Observing that Jage Ram was 77 years old at the time of the incident and that he used a lathi for support, the court noted: "A walking stick in the hands of an old man does not transform into a weapon of murder. When a single blow is struck in the heat of the moment, the law must distinguish between intention and consequence."
The court ruled that Jage Ram’s actions were covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies when a death occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation. It held that: "The accused had no prior intention to kill but was aware that his actions could lead to fatal consequences. This makes it a case of culpable homicide, not murder."
Thus, his conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and his sentence was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
Acquittal of Shree and Ram Bhaj on Murder Charges
The court also set aside the murder convictions of Shree and Ram Bhaj, holding that they had only inflicted simple injuries on Om Singh and played no role in the death of Tale Ram.
As they never entered the house, the court ruled that they could not be held liable for the homicide. Instead, they were convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt.
Given that Shree had already served 1 year, 8 months, and 29 days, and Ram Bhaj had served 2 years and 4 days, the court reduced their sentences to the time already served, allowing for their immediate release.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Ram Bhaj & Ors. vs. State of Haryana underscores a critical legal principle—not all killings amount to murder. The court carefully examined inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the absence of forensic proof, and the circumstances of the attack, ultimately delivering a nuanced judgment that balanced justice with fairness.
By acquitting Rajesh, reducing Jage Ram’s conviction, and modifying the liability of Shree and Ram Bhaj, the court reinforced the principle that criminal culpability must be based on clear, consistent, and corroborated evidence.
As the court aptly noted: "Justice demands that punishment must fit both the crime and the intent behind it. An old man striking a blow in a moment of anger does not make a murderer—unless the law forgets its duty to distinguish."
Date of Decision: March 10, 2025
