NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Common Law in India – Ist Trimester Project

An Analysis of

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 92/2015

JAGE RAM AND ORS. …… APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF HARYANA …… RESPONDEN
(url- http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42330)

In the Supreme Court of India

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Decided on: 28.01.2015

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: [Justice R. Banumathi and Justice V. Gopala Gowda.]

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

BHAVIK SHUKLA PROF. (DR.) GHAYUR ALAM
SECTION- A
ROLL NO. – 2015BALLB60
ENROLLMENT NO. - A-1564
Page 1 of 10
Table of Contents

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1 Concrete Facts 3
2 Material Facts & Reasons 5
3 Concrete Decision 6
4 Generalisation of Material Facts and 7
Concrete Decision
5 Ratio Decidendi 9

Page 2 of 10
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JAGE RAM AND ORS. v STATE OF HARYANA

[Citation: 2015(2)ACR1416(SC)]

NAME OF JUDGES [Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala
Gowda]
DATE OF DECISION- 28/01/2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 181 SB of 2000

 CONCRETE FACTS

 It was 18th November, 1994, at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning and the complainant
Jagdish (PW-5) along with his two sons namely Sukhbir and Mange Ram (PW-6) were
busy in cutting pullas (reeds) from the dola of their field.
 At that time, Jage Ram (A-1) and his sons Rajbir Singh @ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3)
and Madan (A-4) armed with jaily, pharsi and lathis respectively, entered the land
where the complainant was working with his sons and asked them not to cut the pullas
as it was jointly held by both the parties.
 Wordy altercations ensued between the parties and Jage Ram insisted that he would
take away the entire pullas.
 In the fight, the accused persons started inflicting injuries to the complainant, and his
sons Rajbir @ Raju (A-2) gave a pharsi blow on the head of Sukhbir, Jage Ram (A-1)
caused injury to Jagdish (PW-5) with two jaily blows.
 Additionally, Madan and Rakesh attacked the complainant with lathi blows on
shoulder and left elbow respectively and caused several other injuries to the
complainant party.
 Jagdish and his injured sons raised alarm, hearing which Rajesh and Usha came to
rescue them and on seeing them, the accused persons fled away.
 The injured witnesses were taken to the Primary Health Centre, Taoru where Dr.
Pardeep Kumar, Medical Officer, medically examined the injured persons.

Page 3 of 10
  Injured Sukhbir was vomiting in the hospital and later on he was referred to General
Hospital, Gurgaon as his condition deteriorated.
 A CT scan disclosed that large extra-dural haematoma1 was found in the frontal region
with mass effect and Sukhbir needed urgent surgery and he was operated upon by
frontal trephine craniopmy an haemotoma measuring about 125 ml was evacuated.
 Dr. Pardeep Kumar (PW-2) also examined the other injured persons, PW 5-Jagdish
and PW 6- Mange Ram.
 Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge vide judgment dated 17.2.2000 convicted all the accused persons under Sections
307 and 325 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
and one year respectively and a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default clause.
 Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused–appellants filed criminal appeal before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide impugned judgment
dated 19.8.2011 modified the judgment of the trial court thereby convicted Jage Ram
(A-1) under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year, convicted second accused Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC and
imposed sentence of imprisonment for five years as well the fine of Rs.500/- was
confirmed by the High Court.
 The appeal was filed with the view of assailing the correctness of the impugned
judgment.

1
A solid swelling of clotted blood within the tissues.

Page 4 of 10
 MATERIAL FACTS

1. The injury caused to the plaintiffs was by the overt act of the appellants.
The reason for the consideration of this as the material fact is because the judge in the
decision has considered this fact in Paragraph 9 while explaining about the culpability
which may arise due to the injury caused by the appellants in course of an altercation.

2. The injury to the plaintiff by the appellant was with an intent to cause grievous
hurt.
The reason for the consideration of this fact as material is because the judge in the
Paragraph 12 of the judgment, has cited it as one of the prerequisites for holding a
person guilty under Section 307 as there was a laceration of the skull. This is also
mentioned in Paragraph 11 of the judgment that the grievous hurt would have directly
led to death if not operated upon.

3. The defendant used a hazardous weapon which was a Pharsi in this case, to
attack the plaintiff.
The materiality of this fact can be asserted from referring to Paragraph 12 of the
judgment where the judge has mentioned about the act committed by the accused.

4. The appellants had already served some time behind bars after the sentence of
the preceding courts.
The reason for the materiality of this fact has been considered by the judge in the
decision with regard to Paragraph 15 of the judgment which states about the reduction
in the sentence with relation to the time already spent behind bars.

Page 5 of 10
 CONCRETE DECISION

The Honourable two judge bench of the Supreme Court held the appeal in this case
was allowed to the extent stated by the court upholding the conviction and sentence of
the appellants and reduced their sentences in regard to the time already served by
them.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was successful in proving the provisions
of Section 307, Section 323 and Section 325 and the decision was given accordingly.

The concurrent findings of the court held that Rajbir (A-2) was held liable under the
Section 307 of the Indian penal Code. The court imposed on the appellant, Rajbir a
punishment of rigorous imprisonment of five years which was reduced to three years
on consideration of the fact that he had already served the deducted portion behind
bars.

 The court also ordered the appellant, Rajbir to pay a compensation of 7.5 Lakh
Rupees out of which he was to pay the 2.5 Lakh Rupees as he had already deposited
a sum of 5 Lakh Rupees failing to do which, he would be sentenced to undergo a
default sentence of one year.
 Jage Ram (A-1) was charged under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous punishment for one year, reduced by the amount
which was already served by him.
 Madan (A-3) and Rakesh (A-4) were charged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous punishment for three months,
reduced by the amount which was already served by them.

Page 6 of 10
 GENERALISATION OF MATERIAL FACTS AND CONCRETE DECISION

The generalisation of the material facts and the concrete decision lead to a wider
principle that can be derived from each of these facts.

1. The inflicting of injury by the appellants by an overt act, or the injury inflicted by
any person by any act by,

2. the causing of injury to the head of a man, or any injury inflicted on a delicate
part of the body of a man or a woman, or any injury caused to any part of the
body of a human being,

3. by a Pharsi, or a weapon of the sort, or by any weapon,

4. leading to a laceration of the skull, or the laceration of any part of the body or
any harm to any part of the body or,

5. an act causing grievous hurt to the plaintiff by a jaily blow, or any hurt which is
grave caused to any human being with any weapon of the sort or by any weapon,

6. an act causing hurt to the plaintiffs with lathi blows, or any hurt caused of a
lesser intensity to any human being with any weapon of the sort or by any
weapon,

7. will be sentenced under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (according to points 1-
4), Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (according to point 6) and Section 325
of the Indian Penal Code (according to point 5),

8. for rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years under Section 307 of Indian
Penal Code, or for any imprisonment whether simple or rigorous for a term as
determined by the judges according to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, or
for imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years under Section 307

Page 7 of 10
 of Indian Penal Code, or any form of imprisonment for any term as determined
by any Act enforceable in India,(for A-2), along with

9. a fine of a specific amount imposed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
or a fine of any amount imposed under any relevant Act, (for A-2), or

10. for rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months under Section 323 of
Indian Penal Code, or any imprisonment simple or rigorous for a term as
determined by the judges under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, or
imprisonment for a term not extending one year under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code, or any form of imprisonment for any term as determined
by any Act enforceable in India, (for A-3 and A-4), or

11. for rigorous punishment for a term of one year under Section 325 of the Indian
Penal Code, or any imprisonment simple or rigorous for a term as determined
by the judges under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, or imprisonment for
a term not extending seven years under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, ,
or any form of imprisonment for any term as determined by an Act enforceable
in India, for (A-1), reduced by

12. a term of imprisonment already served behind the State jail, or a term of
imprisonment served behind any jail in India. (for A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4)

Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10
 RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE

The ratio decidendi of this case has been not explicitly given in the judgment but can be
wisely inferred by clever analysis. The ratio decidendi is the reason the judgment or point of
law in the case and is as follows:-
 The judges in this case have taken into consideration that the liability under Section
307 of Indian Penal Code arises on the basis of the fact that the causing of head
injuries, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows may be a cause of death in
ordinary situations if not treated upon.

 The compensation paid to the victim under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was on
the basis that the victim sustained grievous head injuries and was deeply comatose
and was in a state of shock and trauma.

 The judges have also taken into consideration that the Section 357(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure under which they said that the judgment can be reduced by that
duration which is already undergone by them and that the judges may award any
sentence as they feel fit in order to meet the ends of justice which would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case and the courts must keep in mind the gravity
of the offence, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant
circumstances.

Page 10 of 10