LexGUDU RAM versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1069
GUDU RAM
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 862 of 2008)
DECEMBER 4, 2012
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
A
8
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304, second part - Assault with
'thapi'- a wooden object shaped like a cricket bat used for
beating clothes while washing - Death of one person due to
C
head injuries and injury to another person (PW1) - Conviction
of accused-appellant u/s. 302 /PC - Justification - Held: PW1
categorically stated that appellant attacked him with a wooden
stick like a 'thapi' and pushed him in the bushes - Presence
of appellant (and none other) at the scene of occurrence not D
in doubt - Medical evidence showed that injuries on PW1 as
also on the deceased could have been caused by a 'thapi' -
In the circumstances of the case, conclusion inescapable that
none other than the appellant attacked PW1 and the
deceased and inflicted injuries on them with a thapi -
E
Insinuation that PW1 committed the crime too nebulous - It
is true that the appellant caused multiple injuries on the
deceased, but it is difficult to infer therefrom that the appellant
intended to kill him - His intention seems to have been to
injure PW1 and to severely injure the deceased - The conduct
F
of PW1 also points to the intentions of the appellant - PW1
did not expect the assault on the deceased to be fatal,
otherwise he would have tended to the needs of the deceased
rather than have gone to call PW2 - The attack was not so
severe (in the estimation of PW1) as to have imminently
G
caused the death of the deceased - It is quite clear that the
appellant had no intention to k111 the deceased - However, the
nature and number of injuries and their location (the skull) as
well as the "weapon" used (a small wooden cricket bat) leads
1069
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A to the conclusion that to a reasonable person, an attack of the
nature launched by the appellant on the deceased could
cause his death - Clearly the appellant had knowledge that
his actions were likely to cause the death of the deceased -
He would, therefore, be guilty of culpable homicide not
B amounting to murder and liable to be sentenced under the
second part of s.304 !PC.
Witness - Hostile witness - Appreciation of - Held: The
evidence of a hostile witness need not be completely rejected
only because he has turned hostile - The Court must,
C however, be circumspect in accepting the testimony of such
a witness and, to the extent possible, look for its corroboration.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
Held: No doubt, proof cannot be substituted by robust
D suspicion - But if all the facts and circumstances point to only
one conclusion, it is difficult to ignore them and even in a case
of circumstantial evidence, it is possible to secure a
conviction.
E
PW-2 was living in a rented accommodation with his
brother (PW-1 ), cousin brother ('D') and wife's cousin
(appellant). On the incident night, during consumption of
drinks and dinner, the appellant and 'D' got involved in a
scuffle. To prevent the scuffle from escalating, PW1 asked
F 'D' to accompany him to PW2's place of work so that 'D'
could spend the night over there away from the
appellant. It is alleged that when PW1 and 'D' had walked
about 50-60 yards, the appellant appeared from behind
and hit PW1 on the head with a thapi [a wooden object
shaped like a cricket bat used for beating clothes while
G washing] and pushed him into the bushes. Thereafter, the
appellant hit 'D' with the thapi and pushed him also into
the bushes. PW1 did not sustain any serious injury and
so he got up and went to inform PW2 about the incident.
Thereafter, PW 2 accompanied by PW1 came upon 'D'
H lying in the bushes and took him to the hospital where
GUDU RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 1071
he succumbed to his injuries. The doctor was of the
A
opinion that 'D' died due to hemorrhagic shock as a
result of ante mortem head injuries. He was also of the
opinion that the injuries could possibly have been
caused by a wooden stick or thapi.
The appellant was charged with having committed
B
the murder of 'D'. PW1, the only eyewitness to the crime,
turned hostile. The trial court, however, held that the
appellant had murdered 'D' and accordingly convicted
him under Section 302 IPC. In appeal, the High Court
upheld the conviction of the appellant holding that there
C
was sufficient evidExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.