The Punjab & Haryana High Court has modified the murder conviction of a 77-year-old man to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that he inflicted a single blow using a lathi—an object not classified as a weapon and commonly carried by elderly individuals in villages.

The division bench, comprising Justice Gurvinder SIngh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "The question that there arises for consideration is as to what offence is made out against Jage Ram. Admittedly, he was of the age of 77 years at the time of occurrence. He was using a lathi to support himself. The same is not a weapon of offence as such and is usually carried in villages by aged persons. He has caused only a single injury with the said lathi on the person of the deceased without repeating the blow."

The Court further observed that, according to the prosecution, the incident began with an assault on the complainant outside the deceased's house. It was only when the deceased loudly inquired about the commotion that the accused entered the house and inflicted the fatal injury. Given these circumstances, the Court held that the accused did not have the intention to commit murder but was aware that his actions could likely result in the deceased’s death.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the murder conviction of three individuals in connection with an FIR registered in 2004.  

As per the prosecution, a scuffle erupted between the accused and the deceased, during which the deceased sustained injuries that led to his death.  

Regarding accused Rajesh, the Court observed that the evidence on record indicated he was responsible for delivering a lathi blow to the deceased’s head.

On 06.03.2004, during the inquest proceedings, the complainant again provided a statement under Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. In his statement, he reiterated that Rajesh had struck his father on the left side of his head with a lathi, while Jage Ram had delivered a lathi blow to his father's left elbow.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Bedi emphasized that, according to the prosecution, Rajesh, Jage Ram, Dalpat @ Kasu, and Surat Singh had entered the deceased’s house and inflicted injuries on him. However, since Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh were acquitted, the Court noted that the complainant’s statement had been only partially accepted.

The Court observed that the complainant had provided conflicting accounts regarding the injury attributed to Rajesh, and there was no corroborative evidence supporting the witness’s statement. As a result, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against Rajesh beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.  

Regarding accused Jage Ram, the bench noted that his role was corroborated by both a prosecution witness and a defense witness, who confirmed that he had struck the deceased on the head with a lathi. Therefore, the allegations against him were proven beyond doubt.  

In determining the nature of the offence committed by Jage Ram, the Court highlighted that he was 77 years old at the time of the incident and used a lathi for support, which is not typically regarded as a weapon of offence, especially among elderly individuals in villages. He inflicted a single injury on the deceased and did not strike again.  

According to the prosecution, the incident began outside the deceased’s house with an assault on the complainant. The deceased intervened by shouting, asking who was being attacked, which led the accused to enter the house and deliver the fatal blow. Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that Jage Ram did not have the intent to commit murder but was aware that his actions could likely cause death. Consequently, his conviction was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

"As regards sentence to be imposed having regard to the advanced aged, being above the age of 100 years, a lenient view is warranted and we deem it appropriate to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years. The sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact," it added.

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae, appeared along with Mr. Tarun Hooda and Mr. Sanskar Dhanda as counsel for appellants Nos. 2 and 3 in CRA-D-248-DB-2005. Mr. Aman Pal represented appellant No. 1 in CRA-D-248-2005, while Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia appeared for the appellants in CRA-263-DB-2005. 

Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana, represented the State.

Case Title: RAM BHAJ & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA