Elderly Man Using “Lathi” Not A Weapon: Punjab & Haryana HC Modifies 100-Yr-Old's Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has altered a 100 year old man's murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, noting that he delivered a single blow with his lathi, which is not a weapon and is typically carried by elderly persons in villages.

Justice Gurvinder SIngh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "The question that there arises for consideration is as to what offence is made out against Jage Ram. Admittedly, he was of the age of 77 years at the time of occurrence. He was using a lathi to support himself. The same is not a weapon of offence as such and is usually carried in villages by aged persons. He has caused only a single injury with the said lathi on the person of the deceased without repeating the blow."

The Court further noted that In fact, as per the prosecution case, the occurrence started with the assault on the complainant outside the house of the deceased. Only when the deceased asked in a loud voice as to who was being assaulted outside his house did the accused enter the house and cause the fatal injury to him. In this situation, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention to commit the offence of murder but it could be said that he was having the knowledge that by causing such an injury, the deceased was likely to die.

The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction in a murder case against three convicts in an FIR lodged in 2004. 

According to the prosecution, a scuffle broke out between the accused persons and the deceased, during which injuries were inflicted upon the deceased, resulting in his death.

The Court noted that, as regards accused Rajesh, a perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that  Rajesh was attributed a lathi blow on the head of the deceased.

On the same day i.e. 06.03.2004, the statement under Section 175 Cr.P.C. during inquest proceedings was recorded of the complainant again wherein he reiterated the version that Rajesh had given a lathi blow to his father on the left side of his head whereas Jage Ram had given a lathi blow on the left elbow of his father.

Speaking for the bench Justice Bedi highlighted, as per the prosecution case, Rajesh, Jage Ram, Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh are stated to have entered the house of the deceased and caused injuries on the person. Dalpat @ Kasu and Surat Singh have since been acquitted. Therefore, apparently, the statement of the complainant has been only partially believed, the Court opined.

Consequently, the Court noted that the complainant has given conflicting versions as to the injury caused by Rajesh. Further, there is no corroboration to the statement of the witness. Therefore, it opined that the prosecution has not established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Rajesh was ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

As regards, accused Jage Ram, the bench said that there is corroboration to the statement of a prosecution witness as regards the injury caused by him from the deposition of a defence witness who also stated that Jage Ram had given a lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Therefore, the allegations against him stand established beyond doubt.

With respect to the question that  what offence Jage Ram committed. The Court pointed that at the time of the incident, he was 77 years old and using a lathi for support, which is not typically considered a weapon of offence, especially among the elderly in villages.

He caused only one injury to the deceased with the lathi and did not repeat the blow. According to the prosecution, the incident began with an assault on the complainant outside the deceased's house. The deceased intervened by shouting, asking who was being attacked, and only then did the accused enter the house and deliver the fatal blow. Given this context, the bench held that it  cannot be concluded that the accused intended to commit murder, but it can be said that he knew that causing such an injury could likely lead to the deceased's death.

Consequently, the Court altered  his conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II of IPC.

"As regards sentence to be imposed having regard to the advanced aged, being above the age of 100 years, a lenient view is warranted and we deem it appropriate to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 years. The sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact," it added.

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 119

Click here to read/download the order