Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Cousin Who Struck Sleeping Man on Head With Iron Rod
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal of Ranjeet Patel, convicted under Section 302 IPC, holding that four family eyewitnesses were credible and their minor contradictions immaterial.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal of Ranjeet Patel, affirming his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur on 28 March 2019. A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, with the judgment delivered by Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, found that four eyewitnesses — all close relatives of the deceased — gave consistent, natural testimony that the Trial Court had correctly accepted. The bench held that minor contradictions in their accounts did not dislodge the prosecution case, and that the weapon recovered, a sabbar/rambha made of iron, was consistent with the fatal head injury recorded at autopsy.
The Killing at 3:30 a.m. in a Shared Courtyard
The incident occurred on 26 May 2015 at approximately 3:30 a.m. at Village Lakhamipur, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur. Informant Lal Sahab (PW-1) lodged a written report, Exhibit Ka-1, stating that his cousin Ranjeet Patel arrived at his door in the early hours and began abusing his brother Ram Asrey over a monetary dispute. When Ram Asrey woke up, Ranjeet Patel struck him on the head with an iron rod, causing serious injury. Other family members tried to intervene but Ranjeet Patel fled with the weapon. Ram Asrey was rushed to BHU Hospital, where he was declared dead.
The three families of brothers Ram Dhani Patel, Ram Chander, and Ram Sewak shared a single house at the time, with a common sehan (courtyard). Ram Asrey was the son of Ram Dhani. Ranjeet Patel is the son of Ram Sewak, making him a cousin of both the deceased and the informant. All family members had been sleeping in the open courtyard, as is common in the summer months.
A case was registered as Crime No. 557 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 504 IPC. The station officer, Anil Kumar Singh (PW-7), conducted the investigation, collected bloodstained soil samples and the mesh of the cot where Ram Asrey had been sleeping, and arranged for postmortem examination. On the same day, 26 May 2015, Ranjeet Patel was arrested on information from a police informer. On his pointing out, the weapon of murder — a sabbar/rambha made of iron — was recovered from the sunflower field of one Surender at Lohmaza. A fardbaramadgi was prepared as Exhibit Ka-6.
Dr. V.K. Sonkar (PW-5) conducted the postmortem on 26 May 2015 and prepared Exhibit Ka-2. He recorded three ante-mortem injuries, the most significant being a 1.5 cm × 1.5 cm lacerated wound on the left temporal region with a deep fracture of the left temporal bone. The cause of death was haemorrhage, shock, and coma resulting from ante-mortem head and brain injury.
Charges under Sections 302 and 504 IPC were framed on 8 September 2015. At trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, PW-1 through PW-7. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22 January 2019. He denied all allegations, stated the recovery was fabricated, and claimed he was falsely implicated due to enmity over a monetary transaction. He gave no defence evidence. The Trial Court acquitted him of the offence under Section 504 IPC but convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, six months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
Arguments Before the Division Bench
Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae, along with Ms. Suman Sonkar appeared for the appellant. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate, along with Mr. K.K. Nishad, State Law Officer, represented the State.
The Amicus Curiae pressed four arguments. First, all four witnesses of fact — PW-1 to PW-4 — were interested family members, and the Trial Court had not adequately scrutinised this aspect. Second, their statements contained contradictions, including about the sequence of events after the assault (whether they went first to the police station or directly to BHU Hospital). Third, the description of the murder weapon was inconsistent: the FIR described an iron rod, while some witnesses called it a rambha and the recovered article was a sabbar/rambha. Fourth, the nature of the weapon and the shape of the injuries were not corroborated, and the medical evidence did not match the eyewitness accounts.
The Additional Government Advocate countered that Ranjeet Patel was named as the sole accused in the written report. Had the informant intended to falsely implicate him, other family members of Ranjeet Patel's side could easily have been named. The incident occurred in the common courtyard in the presence of persons who had been sleeping there. Being summer, it was early morning, and identifying a cousin at close quarters in those conditions was straightforward. No material contradiction existed in the prosecution evidence.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench worked through each challenged element in turn.
Sequence of events after injury. PW-1 stated in one part of his evidence that he carried Ram Asrey straight to BHU Hospital, and elsewhere that he went first to the police station, where the officer asked him to proceed to BHU. The bench found this a minor contradiction that did not affect the prosecution story. PW-1's account of the occurrence itself was natural and consistent throughout.
Description of the weapon. The FIR described an iron rod. PW-1 initially said iron rod, then corrected himself in cross-examination to say rambha. PW-2 said iron rod; PW-3 and PW-4 said rambha. The bench noted the physical distinction: a rambha is a thick iron implement used for boring or digging, slightly broader in diameter than a plain iron rod, but both are made of hard iron. Given this, no witness had described a fundamentally different object. The injury recorded at autopsy — a lacerated wound with deep bone fracture of the left temporal bone — was consistent with a blow from an iron implement of the kind recovered. The bench concluded that the weapon description discrepancy was not a material contradiction.
Identification in poor light. The incident occurred at 3:30 a.m. in May. The defence argued there was no source of light. The bench held that in a summer night in the open, identification of a close relative at the distance of a shared courtyard was entirely plausible. Ranjeet Patel was the informant's own cousin. Village residents, the bench observed, can identify familiar persons by speech, gait, and language even in dim conditions. The bench relied on the Supreme Court's observations in Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238, to the effect that when assailants are not strangers, even meagre light is sufficient for identification, and the same light available to the assailant is available to the victim's companions.
Family members as interested witnesses. The bench applied the principle, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Others v. State of Bihar, 2008 (61) ACC 972, that relationship per se does not affect a witness's credibility. A family member is a natural witness. The term “interested” postulates some direct or indirect interest in securing conviction through animus or an oblique motive, not merely family connection. Similarly, in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Supreme Court held that a close relative would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
Applying these principles, the bench found that all four prosecution witnesses — PW-1 (brother of deceased), PW-2 (wife of deceased), PW-3 (mother of deceased), and PW-4 (sister-in-law of deceased) — had testified in a natural manner without embellishment, exaggeration, or concoction. PW-2 corroborated the date, time, place, and manner of the assault. PW-3 confirmed the common use of the sehan and the presence of relatives at the time due to upcoming family events. PW-4 specifically testified about the monetary dispute between the deceased and the appellant, which the bench treated as consistent with the motive stated in the FIR.
The bench also drew significance from the fact that Ranjeet Patel alone was named in the FIR. If PW-1 had wished to falsely implicate the appellant out of enmity, he could have named other members of Ranjeet Patel's side of the family. Nominating only one person lent assurance of truthfulness.
Intention to kill. The bench held that the choice of weapon and the site of assault spoke for themselves. The head is a vital and sensitive part of the body. Striking a sleeping person on the head with a heavy iron implement causing a temporal bone fracture and fatal haemorrhage indicated an intention to kill, satisfying the requirements of Section 302 IPC.
Motive. The bench stated that where eyewitness evidence is reliable, motive loses its significance. In any event, the monetary dispute between the appellant and the deceased was mentioned in the FIR and corroborated by PW-4.
Having reviewed the findings of the Trial Court, the Division Bench found them supported by the evidence on record and grounded in sound appreciation of the material. It found no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the Trial Court's judgment.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 4487 of 2019. It affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 268 of 2015 (State v. Ranjeet Patel, arising out of Crime No. 557 of 2015) under Section 302 IPC. Ranjeet Patel's conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life, along with the fine of Rs. 10,000 and the default sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment, stand confirmed. The bench directed that the order be communicated to the Trial Court and that the lower court records be transmitted.