Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shera Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008
Date of decision : 25.01.2013
Shera Ram and others
.... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Mr.Swaraj Arora and Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2008 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2008, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which appellants Shera Ram, Mahender Singh, Rajender Singh and Pawan Kumar have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [2] imprisonment for two years each. Appellant Pawan Kumar has also been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a telephonic message was received from Police Station City, Sirsa in Police Station Rania to the effect that Vinod in injured state and deceased Ranbir are present in General Hospital, Sirsa and asked for sending Investigating Officer, upon which Sub Inspector Hari Chand (Investigating Officer), SHO, Police Station Rania alongwith other police officials reached General Hospital, Sirsa where the Investigating Officer obtained medico legal report of Vinod Kumar from the doctor and the doctor declared the injured unfit to make the statement. Lateron, in the hospital, statement of Chunni Ram, father of deceased Ranbir, was recorded. In his statement, Chunni Ram, complainant, stated that many years ago, a quarrel of fighting had taken place between him and Manphool, who is son-in-law of his (complainant) real brother Shera Ram in which Manphool Singh had sustained injuries. Lateron, a compromise was arrived at between them. Complainant and his brother alongwith their family members had been visiting the house of each other frequently. His brother Shera Ram had taken the land of Mahinder Ram on share basis, which was adjacent to the village. There was a hamlet (Dhani) in the Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [3] said field. Shera Ram alongwith his family used to reside in the said hamlet (Dhani). Rajinder, son of his brother, had been blessed with a son and he came to the house of complainant at about 7:00 p.m. on 19.02.2006 and asked complainant's son Ranbir that he would give a party on the eve of birth of his son and he (Rajinder) asked him (Ranbir) to accompany him to the hamlet (Dhani). Complainant's son then accompanied Rajinder. When Ranbir did not return after sufficient time, complainant went to the hamlet (dhani) of Shera Ram at about 9:30 p.m. to call him. In the electric light, complainant saw that Rajinder, Pawan and Mahinder, sons of Shera Ram were armed with gandasas and his brother Shera Ram was armed with an iron axe. Vinod Kumar, son of Phussa Ram, was crying while lying on the ground having injury on his head. The complainant further stated that in his sight, Rajinder gave a gandasa blow on the right side of the head of his son Ranbir, Pawan gave a gandasa blow on the right eye of Ranbir and Mahinder also gave blow of his gandasa to Ranbir. Ranbir raised his right hand to ward of the blow and the blow fell on his right hand. His son then fell on the ground. All those four accused inflicted injuries with their respective weapons to the son of complainant. When complainant tried to rescue Ranbir, Shera Ram remarked that he be also attacked and they be taught a lesson for inflicting injuries to his son-in-law. Due to the fear, the complainant ran away towards the village to bring other persons from the village. The complainant then took his nephew Krishan and other 4-5 Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [4] persons of the village to the hamlet (Dhani). His son Ranbir was lying in a pool of blood. After arranging a jeep, when Ranbir was being shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, he succumbed to the injuries. On reaching hospital, Ranbir was declared dead. After recording the statement of complainant, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Then the Investigating Officer reached the dead house where the dead body of Ranbir was lying. Inquest report was prepared and statements of witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Postmortem examination on the dead body was got conducted. Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials and complainant Chunni Ram visited the place of occurrence. Blood stained earth from the place of occurrence was lifted and the same was taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Rough site plan was prepared. Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials and complainant went to the house of Shera Ram . All the four accused were found present in the house. Investigating Officer arrested them. At the time of arrest, accused Shera Ram produced one axe and accused Mahender produced one gandasa, which were taken into police possession after preparing sketches and sealed parcels. On interrogation, accused Rajinder and Pawan suffered disclosure statements and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, two gandasas, one from accused Rajinder and one from accused Pawan, were recovered, which were taken into police possession after preparing sketches and sealed parcels. Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [5] Rough site plans of the places of recovery were prepared. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Chunni Ram, complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. He also deposed regarding arrest of accused, disclosure statements suffered by the accused and recoveries. PW2 Vinod is an injured eye witness to the occurrence. He also deposed as per prosecution version. PW3 Chandi Ram, Patwari, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PM. PW4 Head Constable Shiv Kumar, PW5 Head Constable Inderjit and PW6 Head Constable Balwant Singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PN, Ex.PO and Ex.PP respectively. PW7 ASI Nafe Singh mainly deposed regarding recording statement of Vinod, injured, after getting the opinion from the doctor regarding his fitness. He also deposed that he recorded the statements of some witnesses. PW8 Dr.Savneet Gill deposed that on 20.02.2006, she alongwith Dr.N.K.Mittal conducted the postmortem examination on the dead Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [6] body of Ranbir Singh and found the following injuries:-
(a) Incised wound 7 x 1.5 cm on right fronto orbital region oblique in ascent. On dissection effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue, underlying bones fractured.
(b) Incised wound 6 x 1.5 cm on right temporal region transversely oblique in direction 4 cm away from the right ear. Underlying bone fractured and brain tissue lacerated.
(c) Incised wound 8 x 2 cm on right temporal region vertically oblique in direction, wound also involved half of right ear. On dissection, effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue, underlying bones fractured and brain tissue lacerated.
(d) Incised wound 5 x 2 cm on mid parietal region
vertical in direction 2 cm away from hair margin. On
dissection effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue.
(e) Incised wound 6 x 1 cm on left side of face vertical in direction on dissection effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue.
(f) Incised wound 20 cm involving whole of palm and 10 cm wrist joint on right side. Palm was separated in two pieces between third and forth web spaces. On dissection, effusion blood in subcutaneous tissues, underlying bones fractured.
Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [7]
(g) Incised wound 14 x 4 cm on posterio lateral aspect of right elbow joint. Lower end of humerous fractured and seen through the wound. On dissection effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue and underlying bone fractured.
(h) Multiple linear abrasions of size 5 to 7 cm seen on front of chest. On dissection effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue.
(i) Incised wound 4 x 2 cm on left side of scapular region transversely oblique in direction present on left side. On dissection, effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue.
(j) Incised wound 13 x 3 cm on upper 1/3rd of interior aspect of right leg, underline bones fractured and seen through the wound. On dissection, effusion of blood in subcutaneous tissue.
(k) Incised wound 6 x 2 cm on lateral aspect of middle 1/3rd of right thigh transverse in direction. On dissection, effusion of blood in subcutaneous.
In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death in the case was haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital organs. Injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW9 Hari Chand, SDI, is the Investigating Officer. He deposed regarding the investigation. PW10 Head Constable Jagdish Chander, mainly deposed regarding delivery Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [8] of special report. PW11 Dr.Jagdeep Aggarwal, Medical Officer, mainly deposed that on 20.02.2006, he medico legally examined Vinod Kumar and found the following injuries:-
1. There was oval wound of 5 cm x 4 cm over left parietal area of scalp with active bleeding present with bone exposed and part of the skin over the wound was missing. Margins were regular and muscle with subcutaneous tissue was incised.
2. There was incised wound of 2 x 0.5 cm over left parietal area posteriorly placed to wound No.1 with bleed positive.
He (PW11) also deposed that weapon used was sharp for both the injuries and duration within six hours. He also stated that, on police request Ex.PX, he declared Vinod Kumar unfit to make statement. The Public Prosecutor, after tendering into evidence Forensic Science Laboratory reports Ex.PDD and Ex.PDD/1, closed the prosecution evidence.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. They denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. Appellant Shera Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also pleaded that false case has been foisted upon them at the instance of his brother Chunni Ram. No such occurrence had taken place at their Dhani. Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [9] Ranbir Singh deceased and Vinod injured suffered injuries at the hands of some other persons and as there was an earlier dispute between his brother Chunni and his son-in-law Manphool, false case was foisted upon them to take revenge on that count in connivance with police. Nothing was recovered from him. They all except Rajinder were present at their house and were lifted from there and framed in the case. Rajinder and his wife used to live in Dhani. Accused Mahender and Pawan took the same plea as taken by accused Shera Ram. Accused Rajinder pleaded that false case has been foisted upon them at the instance of his uncle Chunni Ram. They did not cause any hurt to Ranbir deceased and Vinod. He alongwith his wife Maya used to reside in Dhani of Basti Ram constructed in the fields and used to cultivate his land. His father and his other brothers used to reside in the village. No such occurrence had ever taken place. In order to take revenge of the earlier dispute of his uncle and his brother-in-law, false case has been foisted upon them. Ranbir and Vinod might have received injuries at the hands of some other persons but involved them at the instance of his uncle in connivance with police. Nothing was recovered from him. He was taken from his Dhani.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Maya, wife of Rajinder accused, who mainly deposed that on the night of 19.02.2006, Ranbir, since deceased, and Vinod had come to their Dhani at about 9:00 p.m. They were in drunkard condition. She was Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [10] cooking meal. Vinod had come to her on the pretext of lighting a biri. He started molesting her. She protested it. Ranbir, since deceased, intervened and he asked Vinod as to why he was molesting her by saying that she was the wife of his brother. They both scuffled with each other. Ranbir was armed with a toki (sharp edged instrument used for cutting wood). Vinod snatched that weapon from Ranbir and caused many injuries to Ranbir with that toki and ran away. No male member of their family was present in the house at that time. Ranbir died at the spot. She and her husband Rajinder used to reside in Dhani and other members of their family used to reside in the village. She produced certified copy of their ration card Ex.D1. She also deposed that all the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case due to Vinod.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused, as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that appellant Shera Ram had died during the pendency of appeal. Death certificate of appellant Shera Ram has been placed on record.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants-accused contended that the presence of eye witnesses on the spot is doubtful. There is no motive to cause the occurrence as the quarrel had taken place about 25 years back. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that defence version is more probable. He also contended that place of occurrence is doubtful. Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [11] The occurrence did not take place at the hamlet (Dhani) of accused. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that only appellant Rajinder alongwith his wife used to reside at Dhani and other appellants used to reside in the village. At the most, the injuries may have been caused by Rajinder. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appeal should be accepted.
On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the eye-witnesses and in the case of eye witnesses account, motive is not too important. He further contended that even from the suggestions given to PWs and statement of DW1 Maya, wife of accused Rajinder, time of occurrence, place of occurrence, murder of Ranbir and injuries to Vinod have been admitted, though, as per defence version, Vinod gave the injuries to Ranbir. Learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, further contended that the oral statements are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. He contended that the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, we find no merit in the contentions of Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [12] learned counsel for the appellants. PW2 Vinod is an injured eye witness and he had received two injuries on vital part of his body i.e. parietal area. There is nothing on the record that these injuries were self suffered etc. Even DW1 Maya, wife of accused Rajinder, has admitted the presence of Vinod at the place of occurrence. As per her statement, there was scuffle between Injured Vinod and deceased Ranbir on the spot. Therefore, in view of the statement of DW1 Maya and the suggestion given to PW2 Vinod, injured eye witness, Vinod (PW2) was present on the spot and no reasonable doubt exists regarding his presence.
As regarding PW1 Chunni Ram, complainant, his presence on the spot also cannot be doubtful. PW1 Chunni Ram, complainant, has deposed that after waiting for sometime, he went to the hamlet (Dhani) to know about Ranbir (deceased). Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record to show that he was not present at the spot. From the cross-examination of PW1 Chunni Ram, complainant, also, nothing came out which may make his statement unreliable. There are no material contradictions nor material improvements in the statements of PW1 Chunni Ram, complainant, and PW2 Vinod, injured, which may make their statements unreliable. Both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version and their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. From the evidence on record, place of occurrence has been fully established. DW1 Maya Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [13] herself admits the place of occurrence. PW9 Hari Chand, SDI, Investigating Officer, also lifted the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. Further, the PWs have deposed regarding the place of occurrence. Even the suggestion was given to the PWs that Vinod tried to molest Maya (DW1) at the place of occurrence where, as per defence version, injuries were given by Vinod. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence. Further, we find that in the case of direct evidence i.e. eye witness account, motive loses significance. In view of the evidence of prosecution on record and the defence version, it is clear that the occurrence took place at the spot.
As regarding the fact that only Rajinder accused and Maya (DW1) were residing at the hamlet (Dhani), we find that there is no evidence on record except certified copy of ration card, placed on record by DW1 Maya. Even the ration card was not got proved by bringing original record. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that other accused were residing somewhere else and only Rajinder alongwith his wife was residing at the hamlet (Dhani). Otherwise also, as per prosecution version, accused Rajinder took Ranbir (deceased) to the hamlet (Dhani) where he (Rajinder) was giving party. Therefore, the presence of other accused on the spot cannot be doubted. Next we find that there are so many injuries i.e. incised wounds on the dead body of Ranbir which also show that the injuries were not caused by one person. As already discussed, there Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [14] is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statements of PW1 Chunni Ram and PW2 Vinod, injured, who are truthful, reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The defence version given by the accused is not believable, firstly there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the defence version, secondly no complaint or representation was filed to the higher authority regarding false implication of accused, thirdly, even in the statements of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the version given by DW1 Maya has not been stated. Rather, the case of the accused as per statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is that Vinod and Ranbir were given injuries by other persons. Even the statement of DW1 Maya does not explain who gave the injuries to Vinod. She deposed that there was scuffle between Vinod (PW2) and Ranbir (deceased) and Vinod snatched that weapon i.e. 'toki' from Ranbir and caused many injuries to Ranbir with that weapon and ran away. There is nothing to explain the injuries on the head of Vinod. Further, the defence version is also improbable. If the injuries were given by Vinod to Ranbir then why the complainant will falsely implicate all these accused. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that defence version cannot be believed. The prosecution version has been duly proved by the eye witnesses to the occurrence whose statements have been duly supported by medical evidence and further from the recovery of weapons. Therefore, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants.
Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008 [15] Therefore, from the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed qua appellants Mahender Singh, Rajinder and Pawan Kumar and is abated qua accused Shera Ram due to his death.
(JASBIR SINGH) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
25.01.2013
mamta
Criminal Appeal No.D-611-DB of 2008
[16]