RAM KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA

RAM KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2022
[@ SLP(Crl.)No. 9906 of 2016]
RAM KUMAR & ANR. …… APPELLANTS
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA …… RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellants are the original accused nos.1 and 6. Apart from the
appellants, five other accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short
“IPC”). The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted all the
seven accused for the offences for which they were prosecuted. Following
punishments were imposed on all seven accused:
2
“Under Section 148 IPC Rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-
each and in case of non-payment of fine,
convicts shall further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days each.
 Under Section 323/149 IPC Rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and
in case of non-payment of fine, convicts
shall further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month each.
 Under Section 325/149 IPC Rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and
in case of non-payment of fine, convicts
shall further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two month each”.

An appeal was preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court. The
appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and
orders, a criminal revision petition was filed by the accused before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugned judgment and order, the
revision petition was dismissed. However, with regard to the accused nos.2
to 5 and 7, while dismissing the revision petition, their sentence was
reduced by the High Court to the one already undergone by them.
2. Shri Jawahar Narang, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that there is no difference between the role ascribed
to the appellants and the role ascribed to the accused who were given
3
benefit by the High Court of being let off on the sentence already
undergone. He submitted that the High Court has not recorded any
reasons for giving a different treatment to the present appellants.
3. Shri Birendra Kumar Chaudhary, the learned AAG representing the
respondent-State of Haryana invited our attention to the injuries sustained
by PW1 Mahabir, PW2 Balwan, PW3 Narender and PW4 Sheela Devi, as
well as PW5 Usha Devi. He submitted that there was a fracture of two ribs
of PW1 Mahabir. He submitted that the case of the prosecution that the
present appellants gave blows of lathi on the injured witnesses has been
established. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for.
4. We have carefully perused the depositions of the injured witnesses
(PW1 to PW5). The depositions of the witnesses reveal that lathis were
used as weapons of assault by all the accused. As per the version of PW2
Balwan, the accused no.3 used iron rod as a weapon to give a blow on his
elbow. Perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court shows that all the
accused were convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. In fact, the
finding in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Trial Court is that all the
accused collectively caused injuries to PW1 to PW5 in furtherance of their
common object. Trial Court has held that there was a minor discrepancy in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as PW2 Balwan referred to an
4
iron rod instead of referring to a lathi. Even the Sessions Court while
affirming the finding of the Trial Court has noted that all the accused made
an assault on injured witnesses by use of lathis.
5. The High Court, as pointed out earlier, has let off other five accused
on the sentence which is already undergone to them. The High Court has
not given reasons why the same benefit was not extended to the
appellants. There is no difference in the role ascribed to the appellants and
the other accused. It is pointed out across the bar that the appellants have
undergone sentence for six weeks. The incident is of 2008. Therefore,
taking into account the facts of the case, there was no reason to deny the
benefit to the appellants which was extended to the other five accused by
the High Court. To that extent, the appeal will have to be allowed. The
substantive sentence of the appellants (accused nos.1 and 6) is reduced to
the sentence already undergone by them.
6. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. All the pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……..…………………J
 (AJAY RASTOGI)
……..…………………J
 (ABHAY S. OKA)
New Delhi;
January 19, 2022. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर