Minor discrepancies do not constitute a violation of section 307, according to the Haryana High Court
TITLE: Arjun and Others v State of Haryana & Chaman v State of Haryana
Decided On-: June 7, 2023
CRA-S-1134-SB-2008 (O&M) and CRR-2263-2008 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekhawat
INTRODUCTION – In the current situation, justice is delayed, which causes a rift between families and loved ones. The accused’s sentence is determined by the magnitude of the crime.
FACTS OF THE CASE
According to the prosecution’s version of events, the complainant Chaman’s statement was the foundation for the FIR that was filed in this particular case. She was wed to Mohan S/o Nandu, an Alwar, Rajasthan, resident. She travelled to her parents’ village of Bikaner in the Haryana district of Rewari on October 23, 2006, for Bhaiya Dooj. Due to the accused Munshi Ram providing milk to the complainant’s family, her parents owed him some money. She was travelling to the village of Lisana on October 26, 2006, with her injured mother Rajwati in order to harvest the rice crop. However, as they were passing through the accused Munshi Ram’s “Nohra” (courtyard), Munshi Ram spotted them and began verbally abusing her mother. Rajwati, her mother, asked him to refrain from mistreating them because they planned to settle the entire debt within a day or so. However, Munshi Ram, Ganga Ram, Sanjay, and their father Arjun Singh—all of whom were charged—came out of the Nohra (courtyard) bearing lathis, and Munshi Ram struck her mother Rajwati in the nose with one of the weapons. Sanjay and Ganga Ram each delivered a lathi blow to her mother’s head, and Ganga Ram also struck her mother in the forehead. After that, Arjun struck her mother’s abdomen with a lathi blow. Munshi Ram, the accused, struck her with a lathi on the right side of her forehead when she attempted to save her mother, and Ganga Ram struck her with a lathi on the back of her. head. The complainant and her mother called for help, and when her brother Dharmender and Mahesh heard them, they came to the scene and freed the women from the attackers’ grasp.
Then, the appellants/accused returned to their Nohra (courtyard) and threatened to murder them when they had the opportunity to do so.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The prosecution cross-examined ten witnesses to help make its case. The following injuries were discovered during the prosecution’s questioning of PW-Dr. J.K. Saini, who medico-legally examined Smt. Rajwati on October 26, 2006, with a history of physical assault by Arjun, Munshi, Ganga Ram, Sanjay, and Kashmina in the village of Bikaner. All the witnesses of the prosecution were in support of the petitioners Enclosing their evidence, the appellants told this hon’ble court an additional tale. Following their modest submissions, the court reached a decision, having a comprehensive understanding of the incident.The learned trial court correctly noted good reasons for concluding that the circumstances of the current case did not warrant application of Section 307 of the IPC.
In addition, PW-2 Rajwati’s death was not intentionally caused, and the findings made by the learned trial court do not call for any further investigation. Chaman v. State of Haryana, CRR No. 2263 of 2003, is consequently dismissed because of the court’s interference.
Reliance can be placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme. The appellants’ substantive sentence is reduced to the time already served by taking into account the totality of the circumstances.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa