- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Krishan .
Factual and Procedural Background
Laxmi Dutt (PW-1) operated a tailoring shop in Village Maghundi. His younger brother, Manohar Lal (“the deceased”), sold general merchandise in the same premises and tutored school children during the day. On the evening of 26-11-1998, the respondent Ram Krishan and co-accused Harmender Singh, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, entered the shop, quarrelled with the deceased, and ultimately struck him on the head with a stone. The deceased fell, rolled approximately 50 feet down a hillside and died from head injuries later confirmed in the post-mortem report.
The police registered an FIR under Sections 452, 323, 427, 302/34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC but acquitted him of the remaining charges; the State’s appeal questioned those acquittals, while the respondent appealed his conviction. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the State’s appeal and overturned the respondent’s murder conviction, holding that the fatal injury could have resulted from the fall rather than an assault. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in concluding that the fatal head injury was more likely caused by a fall than by an intentional assault with a stone.
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent, contrary to concurrent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, was sustainable in law.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that:
- There was no dispute that the deceased died of a head injury, and five eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) consistently testified that the respondent struck the deceased with a stone on the left side of the head.
- The High Court’s speculation that the deceased may have slipped before being hit was unsupported by any material on record.
- Post-mortem findings recorded multiple head injuries, including Injury 9—a fracture in the left temporal region—identified as the fatal injury, which was consistent with the eyewitness account of a stone-strike rather than a mere fall.
- The High Court’s conclusion that nobody examined the deceased before he rolled downhill was irrelevant; the decisive fact was the direct evidence of an intentional strike.
- Hence, the High Court’s acquittal rested on “surmises and conjectures,” lacking evidentiary foundation.
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s conviction was sound and should be reinstated.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment of acquittal is set aside, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302 IPC are restored. The respondent must surrender to custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Implications: The decision directly affects only the parties, reinstating the respondent’s murder conviction. The Court did not articulate any broader doctrinal rule or create new precedent.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. The Division Bench had disposed of two appeals, one by the accused and the other by the State, both questioning correctness of the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi.
2. As noted above, while the accused questioned his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the State's appeal was against the acquittal in respect of offences punishable under Sections 452, 427 and 323 IPC so far as respondent Ram Krishan is concerned and also questioning acquittal of co-accused Harmender. The High Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the order of acquittal as done by the trial court while also directing acquittal of the respondent.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Laxmi Dutt (PW 1), resident of Village Mandap in Tahsil Karsog was running a tailoring shop at the material time in Village Maghundi at a distance of about one kilometre from his residential house. Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was his younger brother and was running a shop of general merchandise at Maghundi in the business premises of PW 1 in the morning and evening, while during the daytime he used to teach students of a nearby school.
4. On 26-11-1998 at about 7.30 p.m when the deceased was present in his aforesaid business premises, Ram Krishan (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) and Harmender Singh (hereafter referred to as “the co-accused”) came there while under the influence of liquor. They wanted to take more liquor at the said business premises of the deceased. They asked the deceased to give them some eatables. The deceased, however, asked the accused persons not to take liquor in his business premises which infuriated them and as a result they quarrelled with the deceased and slapped him. The accused persons also threw the goods at the business premises of the deceased helter-skelter. When the deceased asked them not to indulge in such mischief, they asked him to get lost. Thereupon the deceased went to the houses of Pawan Kumar (PW 5) and Dogar Ram, residents of Village Thaltu. The deceased informed them about the acts and conduct of the accused persons and then returned to his business premises along with PW 5 and Dogar Ram, who is the elder brother of accused Harmender Singh. PW 5 and Dogar Ram requested the accused persons not to commit the mischief in the business premises of the deceased. However, the accused persons asked them to get lost.
5. The deceased then went to his house and informed Laxmi Dutt (PW 1) and Karam Dass (PW 6) and other persons present in the house about the acts and conduct of the accused persons. Laxmi Dutt (PW 1), Amba Dutt (PW 2), Nanak Chand (PW 3) and Preen Lal came along with the deceased and reached the business premises at about 8.15 p.m They inquired from the accused persons as to why they had picked up a quarrel with the deceased. On such enquiry, the accused persons stepped out of the business premises of Manohar Lal (deceased), and with a stone, hit on the left side of his head and as a consequence, the deceased dropped dead at the site where he had sustained injury with stone, Ext. P-1 and rolled down the hillside up to a distance of about 50 feet. The accused persons thereafter pelted stones on the other persons present there thereby causing simple hurt to PW 6 and Dogar Ram.
6. On hearing the noise from the spot, Man Singh (PW 7) also came to the place of occurrence. He asked the accused persons not to pelt stones and took them to their houses. PW 1, PW 7 and Khuba Raid went to the house of Krishna Devi (PW 4), Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and informed her of the murder of Manohar Lal (deceased). She accompanied them to the place of occurrence and inspected the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, PW 1, PW 4 and PW 7 went to Police Station Karsog and lodged FIR, Ext. PW-1.A under Sections 452, 323, 427, 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons and the investigation in the matter followed.
7. SHO, Harbhajan Singh, SI (PW 13) visited the place of occurrence and took the dead body of Manohar Lal in possession. Photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence were taken and the developed photographs are Exts. PW-10.A-1 to PW-10.A-8. The report Marg Exts. PW-13.B and PW-13.C were prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Stone, Ext. PW-1 was also taken in possession vide recovery memo, Ext. PW-4/1 and was sealed. Stone, Ext. P-2 was also taken in possession from the business premises of the deceased vide recovery memo, Ext. PW-4.B. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Girish (PW 14) and the post-mortem report issued by him is Ext. PW-14.A. As per opinion of PW 14, the deceased died due to the injuries to brain caused by the head injury.
8. Fourteen witnesses were examined to substantiate the prosecution version. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were stated to be eyewitnesses. The High Court noticed that the injury could have been caused because of the fall and not because of the assault made by the respondent. The basis for such conclusion was that the injuries noticed on post-mortem clearly revealed that there was a scope for the injuries having been sustained during the fall. It was, therefore, held that the vital injury could not have been caused by the accused Ram Krishan.
9. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court are purely based on conjectures. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment.
10. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that the deceased died out of a head injury. PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are eyewitnesses and all of them stated that the accused Ram Krishan hit the deceased on the left side of the head with the stone and he rolled down. Thus there was no material before the High Court to come to a conclusion that the death occurred due to fall. The High Court came to a peculiar finding that it might be possible that before the stone had hit the head of the deceased, he had slipped and had rolled down. There was no material on record in this regard.
11. The High Court's conclusion is that no one examined the body of the deceased before it rolled down to ascertain whether he was alive or dead. It is relevant that all the eyewitnesses had stated about the assault on the head of the deceased by the accused with the stone. Injury 9 was described as the fatal injury. At least five of the injuries were on the head, which can be related to the assault by the stone and more particularly Injury 9 viz. the fracture in the left temporal region. Since the High Court's order is based on surmises and conjectures, it cannot be sustained and is set aside and the order of conviction recorded by the trial court stands restored. The respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence.
12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Alert