he Punjab & Haryana High Court has modified the murder conviction of a 100-year-old man, Jage Ram, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court acknowledged that he had used a lathi—a wooden stick typically carried by elderly individuals for support—and had delivered only a single blow without repetition.
The division bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed:
"The question that arises for consideration is what offense is made out against Jage Ram. He was 77 years old at the time of the incident and used a lathi for support. This is not a weapon of offense but is commonly carried by elderly individuals in villages. He inflicted only one injury without repeating the blow."
Case Background
The case stemmed from an FIR filed in 2004, wherein the prosecution alleged that a dispute between the accused and the complainant led to an altercation. The scuffle escalated, resulting in injuries inflicted on the deceased, ultimately leading to his death.
According to the prosecution’s version, the attack began outside the house of the deceased. Upon hearing the commotion, the deceased intervened by shouting, at which point the accused allegedly entered the house and struck the fatal blow. The key question before the court was whether this action constituted murder (Section 302 IPC) or a lesser offense.
Conflicting Testimonies and Court’s Observations
During the trial, the complainant’s statements showed inconsistencies regarding the injuries caused by the accused. Initially, the complainant stated that accused Rajesh had inflicted a lathi blow on the head of the deceased. However, in a subsequent statement, he attributed this injury to Jage Ram instead.
Read Also:- NET Qualification Mandatory for Assistant Professor and Extension Lecturer: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The court noted:
"The complainant has provided conflicting versions regarding the injury caused by Rajesh. Further, no corroborative evidence supports this claim. Therefore, Rajesh is acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt."
In contrast, the allegations against Jage Ram were corroborated by another witness. The court found that while Jage Ram did strike the deceased, it could not be conclusively established that he had intended to commit murder. Instead, the evidence suggested that he was aware that his action could cause fatal injury.
Conviction Modified: Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC
Taking into account Jage Ram’s advanced age and the nature of the weapon used, the court modified his conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC).
"Considering the circumstances, it cannot be said that Jage Ram had the intent to commit murder. However, he had knowledge that his action could likely result in death. Therefore, his conviction is modified to Section 304 Part II IPC."
Read Also:- Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Right to Privacy: Orders Removal of Man's Name from Court Records
The court sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, with the fine amount and sentence in default of fine remaining unchanged.
Other Acquittals and Sentence Reductions
Apart from Jage Ram’s conviction, the court acquitted Rajesh, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish his role in the crime. Similarly, Shree S/o Jage Ram and Ram Bhaj were convicted only under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to the complainant and were sentenced to the time they had already served.
"Shree and Ram Bhaj did not enter the house or assault the deceased. Their conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and they are convicted under Section 323 IPC alone."
The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a more lenient approach for Jage Ram, considering his age and circumstances.
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Tarun Hooda, Advocate and
Mr. Sanskar Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant Nos.2 and 3 in CRA-D-248-DB-2005.
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant No.1 in CRA-D-248-2005.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for appellants in CRA-263-DB-2005.
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Title: RAM BHAJ & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA
