Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sangeet And Another on 21 July, 2010
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Mohinder Pal
-1-
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010,
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
...
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Date of Decision: July 21,2010.
State of Haryana ... Appellant
VERSUS
Sangeet and another ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010.
Sangeet and others ... Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010.
Ashok ... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.89-DB of 2010.
Anil ... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
-2-
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010,
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate,
for the appellants
in Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010.
Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate,
for the appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.89-DB of 2010.
Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
By this judgment Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009 (State of Haryana Vs. Sangeet and another), Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010 ( Sangeet and others Vs. State of Haryana), Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 ( Ashok Vs. State of Haryana) and Criminal Appeal No.89-DB of 2010 ( Anil Vs. State of Haryana) arising out of F.I.R. No.187 dated 27.7.2004, registered against Ashok, Sangeet, Ram Phal, Smt. Nahni, Anil and Narender (hereinafter referred to as `the accused') under Sections 148/ 149/ 302/ 307/ 449/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and Section 25 of the Arms Act (for short `the Act') at Police Station -3- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Meham, District Rohtak, are being disposed of.
Vide judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2009 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, all the accused were convicted under Sections 148/ 302/ 307/ 449 read with Section 149 of the Code. Accused Ashok, Sangeet, Ram Phal, Anil and Narender were also convicted under Section 25 (1-B) of the Act.
As per the sentence order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned trial Judge, accused Sangeet and Narender were sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code, subject to confirmation by this Court. Accused Ashok, Ram Phal, Anil and Smt. Nahni, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Under Section 148 of the Code, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 449 read with Section 149 of the Code. All the accused were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years -4- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code. Accused Sangeet, Narender, Ashok, Ram Phal and Anil, under Section 25 (1-B) of the Act, were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The entire amount of fine was ordered to be paid to injured Amardeep alias Amarjeet as compensation.
Before proceeding further, relationship inter se
between the accused party and the complainant party requires
to be is noticed, which is as below:-
Accused Ram Phal is the real
brother of complainant Randhir Singh and
deceased Ranbir (victim);
Accused Sangeet is the son of
accused Ram Phal;
Accused Smt.Nahni is the wife of
accused Ram Phal;
Deceased Bimla (victim) was the wife
of Ranbir (deceased);
Deceased Seema (victim) was the
-5-
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010,
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
wife of injured Amardeep;
Deceased Rahul (victim), aged about
three years, was the son of injured
Amardeep and deceased Seema and
grand-son of deceased Ranbir;
The instant case was registered against the accused on the basis of statement made before the police by complainant Randhir Singh. Randhir Singh were five brothers including Ranbir (deceased). All the brothers were residing separately. They were agriculturalists by profession. Ranbir (deceased) was living adjacent to the house of complainant Randhir Singh in Village Lakhan Majra. The family of Ranbir (deceased) consisted of his wife Bimla (deceased), son injured Amardeep, daughter-in-law Seema (deceased) and grand-son Rahul (deceased).
At about 1 A.M on the night intervening 26.7.2004 and 27.7.2004, complainant Randhir Singh heard a loud noise. He came out of his house. He saw a motor-cycle in the street. He also saw a young man with a pistol in his hand coming out from the house of Ranbir (deceased). That person abused the complainant and threatened to kill him. The complainant went back to his house. After some time thereafter, complainant Randhir Singh heard the noise of his nephew Amardeep. Upon it, neighbours and villagers gathered there. The complainant -6- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
also reached there. They say Ranbir, his wife Bimla and his grand-son Rahul were lying dead. There were bullet marks and sharp-edged weapon injuries on their bodies. Seema, wife of Amardeep was lying burnt on the cot. There were also marks of injuries on her person. The complainant further stated that Amardeep, nephew of complainant, was seen sitting on the sofa and he (Amardeep) had sustained injuries on his head. Amardeep was brought to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (for short `P.G.I.M.S'), Rohtak for treatment.
After registration of the case on the basis of statement of complainant Randhir Singh, investigation in this case commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused were arrested during investigation. The weapons of offence were recovered from the accused.
After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session at Rohtak for trial.
Charge was framed against all the accused under Sections 148/ 449/ 302/ 307/ 324/ 326 read with Section 149 of the Code. Besides accused Ashok, Sangeet, Ram Phal, Anil and Narender were charged for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) of the Act. The accused did not plead guilty to the -7- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
charges framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. S.P. Chugh (P.W.1), Dr. P.K. Paliwal (P.W.2), eye witness-injured Amardeep alias Amarjeet (P.W.3), Jasvir Singh (P.W.4), complainant Randhir Singh (P.W.5), Dr. Ashok Yadav (P.W.6), Dr. Hardev Singh Chandi (P.W.7), Dharampal, Record Keeper, P.G.I.M.S, Rohtak (P.W.8), Assistant Sub Inspector Ajmer Singh (P.W.9), Constable Bal Ram (P.W.10), Head Constable Hawa Singh (P.W.11), E.H.C. Bhisam (P.W.12), Constable Karnail Singh (P.W.13), Constable Sumit Kumar (P.W.14), Narender Kumar, Reader to District Magistrate,Rohtak (P.W.15), Assistant Sub Inspector Maha Singh (P.W.16), Assistant Sub Inspector Baljit Singh (P.W.17), Deputy Superintendent of Police Fateh Singh (P.W.18), Constable Anup Singh (P.W.19), Assistant Sub Inspector Raj Kishan (P.W.20), Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Singh (P.W.21), Head Constable Ramdhari (P.W.22), Inspector Hawa Singh (P.W.23), Assistant Sub Inspector Kulbir Singh (P.W.24), Constable Rakesh Kumar (P.W.25), Ram Bhagat Sharma, Reader to the District Magistrate, Rohtak (P.W.26), Sub Inspector Vidya Nand (P.W.27), Assistant Sub Inspector Raj Kishan (P.W.28), Head Constable Vijay Pal (P.W.29) and Dr. Deepak Gupta (P.W.30).
After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of -8- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they pleaded innocence and denied the prosecution allegations. However, no evidence was led by the accused in their defence. We have heard Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, appearing for appellants Sangeet, Ram Phal, Smt. Nahni, Narender and Ashok in Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010, Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, appearing for appellant Anil in Criminal Appeal No.89-DB of 2010 and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case.
In this case, the solitary eye-witness to the murders of his father Ranbir, mother Smt. Bimla, wife Seema and minor son Rahul is Amardeep alias Amarjeet (P.W.3). He (Amardeep) himself had sustained serious injuries in the occurrence. He is thus a star witness of the prosecution. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said with certainty that he (Amardeep - P.W.3) would be the last person to falsely implicate the accused by letting the real culprits go Scot free. His whole family i.e his father Ranbir, his mother Smt. Bimla, his wife Seema and his minor son Rahul had been wiped out by the accused brutally and mercilessly. Exhibits P.39 to P.47 are the photographs of the dead bodies of -9- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Ranbir, Smt. Bimla, Seema and Rahul and Exhibits P.39/A to P.47/A are the negatives of the photographs. Exhibit P.41 is the photograph of the dead body of Seema, who had been completely burnt by the accused. The photograph (Exhibit P.41) shows that whole portion below the waist of Seema had been desolately burnt, which also shows that before murdering Seema she had been subjected to sexual violence and in order to wrap-up the evidence with regard thereto she had been burnt like this, although her husband i.e Amardeep (P.W.3) has kept his mum and remained tightlipped about this. Dr.P.K.Paliwal (P.W.2), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Seema, was handicapped in giving any opinion with regard to Seema having been subjected to sexual harassment because of completely charring of her body below her waist by accused Sangeet. Otherwise, all the accused were armed with deadly weapons like firearms, `Khukhri' and sickle and they had unhesitatingly and indiscriminately used the firearm in eliminating the victims and there was no reason for accused Sangeet to set ablaze Seema (deceased) particularly more vociferously below her waist. It was done, prima facie, to finish the evidence with regard to rape and with regard to presence of semen of the accused subjecting her to rape. Three accused in this case, namely, Ashok, Anil and Narender were professional criminals and they had planned the murders with accused -10- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Sangeet, Ram Phal and Smt. Nahni in a hard-core-criminals like manner.
The brutality of the accused is also delineated in the way they murdered the child Rahul, aged about three years. The photograph (Exhibit P.45) of the dead body of Rahul shows that his head had been blown off by firing at him from a point-blank range. The details of the crime committed by the accused have been given by Amardeep (P.W.3), an eye-witness and injured, in his deposition in Court. He stated that his father Ranbir (deceased) was having four brothers i.e Godha Ram, Randhir (complainant), Ram Phal (accused) and Banwari. Ram Phal (accused), who was elder to Ranbir (deceased) was having two sons, namely, Ved Pal and Sangeet (accused). The marriage of Ved Pal had taken place in the year 2002. He (Ved Pal) died two days after his marriage. He further stated that after the death of Ved Pal, the family members of Ram Phal (accused) started blaming the family of Amardeep (P.W.3) for the death of Ved Pal as they (family members of Ved Pal) suspected that Ved Pal had died due to practice of some Black Magic (`Jadoo-Tona') by the family of Amardeep (P.W.3). After the death of Ved Pal, accused Ram Phal and his family members had started threatening the family of Amardeep (P.W.3) that they would ruin the family of Amardeep. He further stated that the family of Ram Phal (accused) had called criminals namely Anil -11- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
(accused), Ashok (accused) and Narender (accused) and they had also threatened that their family would be finished. Amardeep (P.W.3) further stated that on the the night of occurrence, he along with his wife Seema (deceased) was sleeping on the roof of their house outside the `Chaubara'. His mother Smt. Bimla (deceased), father Ranbir (deceased) and his son Rahul (deceased) were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. At that time, accused Ram Phal armed with `Khukhari', accused Smt. Nahni armed with a `Drati', accused Sangeet armed with pistol, accused Anil, Ashok and Narender also armed with pistols came to the `Chaubara' of the house of Amardeep (P.W.3). Accused Smt.Nahni exhorted her co-accused to teach a lesson to the family of Amardeep for killing Ved Pal. Thereafter, accused Sangeet fired a shot from his pistol at Seema. Ram Phal gave a `Khukhri' blow on the head of Amardeep (P.W.3). Thereafter, all the accused came on the ground floor. Accused Ashok fired a shot from his pistol at Smt. Bimla. Accused Anil fired a shot from his pistol at Ranbir. Accused Ram Phal gave a `Khukhri' blow on the person of Ranbir. Thereafter, accused Narender fired a shot from his pistol at Rahul. Smt. Bimla Rahul and Ranbir died at the spot due to injuries. Thereafter, accused Sangeet came on the roof of the house and poured kerosene oil on Smt. Seema, wife of Amardeep (P.W.3) and set her ablaze. After some time, Smt. Seema also died. All the accused decamped -12- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
from the spot with their respective weapons. Amardeep (P.W.3) raised an alarm. On hearing his alarm, the villagers gathered there. Amardeep (P.W.3) was shifted to P.G.I.M.S, Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was no motive for the accused to commit the crime. However, we do not find any merit in this argument. As noticed above, it has come in the evidence of Amardeep (P.W.3) that Ram Phal (accused), elder brother of Ranbir (deceased) was having two sons, namely, Ved Pal and Sangeet (accused). Ved Pal's marriage had taken place in the year 2002 and he died two days after his marriage. After the death of Ved Pal, the family members of Ram Phal (accused) had started blaming the family of Amardeep (P.W.3) for the death of Ved Pal as the family of accused Ram Phal had suspected that the death of Ved Pal had occurred due to practice of some Black Magic (`Jadoo-Tona') by the family of Amardeep (P.W.3). The family members of accused Ram Phal had thereafter started threatening the family of Amardeep (P.W.3) that they would ruin the family of Amardeep. The family members of Ram Phal (accused), thus, had a motive to commit the instant crime.
Another argument raised by the learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Nahni accused is that her participation in the commission of the crime is doubtful as she did not cause any injury to anybody. Again, we do not find any merit in this -13- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
argument. It has come in the evidence of Amardeep (P.W.3) that accused Smt.Nahni, who was armed with a `Drati' (sickle) had exhorted her co-accused for teaching a lesson to the family of Amardeep for killing Ved Pal, son of Smt. Nahni accused and Ram Phal (accused). It was thereafter that the other accused had started the mayhem at the house of Amardeep (P.W.3). The facts and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution leave no room for doubt that the killings have been done in this case in a well-planned manner. It cannot be said that Smt. Nahni (accused) or her husband Ram Phal (accused) were not involved in this planning. The family of Ram Phal (accused) had hired the services of professional killers i.e accused Ashok, Anil and Narender. It has been stated by Amardeep (P.W.3) that these accused i.e Ashok Anil and Narender had also started threatening the family of Amardeep. Such type of deep conspiracy was not possible unless Smt.Nahni (accused) and other members of her family were involved.
It has also been argued that complainant Randhir Singh, in his statement (Exhibit P.13), leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused, did not name or specify the accused who had come from the side of the house of Amardeep (P.W.3) in the street and had threatened him on the night of the occurrence when he (Randhir Singh) had come out of his house on hearing an alarm and it, according to the -14- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
learned counsel, causes a dent in the veracity of the prosecution version. However, once again, this argument cannot be given importance in view of the fact that it was quite dark at that time. Otherwise also, three of the accused are hired professional killers. It was not possible for Randhir Singh to have identified these persons. Besides, at that time, Randhir Singh did not know as to what was happening in the house of his brother Ranbir. As stated above, complainant Randhir Singh is the real brother of Ram Phal (accused) and Ranbir (deceased). Under the circumstances, it can be very-well understood that at that time Randhir Singh (complainant) was in a dilemma and wanted to wait and watch the developments. However, it is significant to note that in his statement (Exhibit P.13) and in his deposition in Court as P.W.5, complainant Randhir Singh stated that when he went to the house of Amardeep (P.W.3) after the crime, he had seen Amardeep present in his house with injuries on his person. As noticed above, Amardeep (P.W.3), who is a stamped witness of the prosecution having received injuries in the occurrence and having seen the entire mayhem by the accused done in his house by murdering four members of his family including his minor son aged about three years, in his deposition in Court had identified each of the accused and had specifically told about the part played by each of them in the commission of this crime. In these -15- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
circumstances, in view of the presence of clinching evidence of Amardeep (P.W.3) in this case, lapse in giving some details on the part of Randhir Singh complainant (P.W.5) does not in any way affect the case of the prosecution.
Then it was argued that there is no corroboration to the statement of Amardeep (P.W.3), the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. It was further submitted that the house of Amardeep (P.W.3) was within the vicinity of the village surrounded by other residential houses and it cannot be said that nobody else had seen the occurrence. As noticed above, the evidence furnished by Amardeep (P.W.3) is quite trustworthy and he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and let the real culprits go Scot free. If, under these circumstances, there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence of Amardeep (P.W.3), it cannot cause any dent in the prosecution version as has been put forth by Amardeep (P.W.3). There is no question of mis- identity of the accused. Accused Ram Phal is the uncle of Amardeep (P.W.3), being the real brother of his father Ranbir (deceased). Accused Sangeet is the son of accused Ram Phal whereas accused Smt.Nahni is the wife of accused Ram Phal. In his cross-examination Amardeep (P.W.3) stated that he was aware about the names of accused Anil, Ashok and Narender as they were on visiting terms with accused Ram Phal. He further stated that "when above said persons used to visit Ram Phal, Ram -16- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Phal used to address by their first names. Ram Phal also used to mention their fathers' names and their aliases names and their addresses." Otherwise also, there was no reason to Amardeep (P.W.3) to falsely implicate these three persons as he (Amardeep) had no enmity with them.
Learned counsel appearing for accused-appellant Anil argued that participation of this accused in the commission of the instant crime is doubtful as he (Anil) had allegedly fired a shot at Ranbir (deceased), father of Amardeep (P.W.3), but no firearm injury was observed on the dead body of Ranbir. He further argued that the empty recovered from the spot did not match with the weapon recovered from accused Anil i.e a country made pistol Exhibit P.W.21/2. Learned counsel for accused Anil, thus, argued that the injury attributed to accused Anil on the person of Ranbir (deceased) by Amardeep (P.W.3) and the manner in which this injury had been caused are not proved and, as such, accused Anil is entitled to acquittal.
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall evidence on record, we are in disagreement with the argument raised by the learned counsel for accused-appellant Anil. This accused along with other accused was present at the scene of crime. After Amardeep (P.W.3) had received injuries with `Khukhri' from appellant Ram Phal on his person, he had seen that the accused had come -17- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
to the ground floor and accused Anil had fired a shot at Ranbir, father of Amardeep (P.W.3). No doubt, Dr.Hardev Singh Chandi (P.W.7), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ranbir, had observed wound caused with a sharp-edged weapon on the right side of his face and neck fracturing his right mandible, right maxilla and cutting cervical vertebrae and opined that this injury could be caused by sharp side with `Khukhri', but it is not the case of the prosecution that shot fired by Anil had actually hit Ranbir. It is quite possible that the shot fired from the pistol of Anil had not hit the target and ultimately Ranbir was killed with some sharp-edged weapon. Otherwise also, as deposed by Assistant Sub Inspector Rajender Singh (P.W.21), accused Anil, in consequence of his disclosure statement, had got recovered a country made pistol Exhibit P.W.21/2. Accused Anil was known to Amardeep (P.W.3), as has been mentioned above. He has been specifically named by Amardeep (P.W.3). Amardeep had no animosity with Anil so as to falsely implicate him in this case.
Learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused are innocent and the murders had been committed by some persons who had come to the house of Amardeep (P.W.3) to commit dacoity. Once again, this argument is devoid of any force. Had the murders of Ranbir, Smt. Bimla, Seema and Rahul been committed by the persons who had -18- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
allegedly come to the house of Amardeep for the purpose of committing dacoity, Amardeep (P.W.3) would not have failed to identify the real culprits. Further more, the persons who come to commit dacoity do not spare any effort to loot the valuables, jewellery, cash etc. However, no such attempt had been made in this case. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the persons who attempt dacoity kill the eye witnesses to wipe out any evidence against them, but there was no justification to kill the small child in a brutal and barbaric manner in which he had been killed. Firstly, Rahul, aged about three years, was thrown from the roof top and thereafter a bullet had been fired at him from a point blank range and whole of his head had been blown off. Amardeep (P.W.3), in his deposition in Court, stated that it was accused Sangeet who had physically lifted his son Rahul from the cot and threw him down on the ground floor. Then accused Narender fired a pistol shot at Rahul. Thereafter, accused Sangeet poured kerosene oil upon Seema and set her ablaze. The injuries caused to Ranbir (deceased), father of Amardeep (P.W.3) and Smt. Bimla, mother of Amardeep, also suggest that no stone had been left unturned by the accused to see that the victims breathed their last in their presence. The parties are `Jat' by caste. It is a well-known saying in this part of the country that enmity of Jat, venom of cobra and memory of camel never fade. As -19- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
noticed above, accused Ram Phal (accused) elder brother of Ranbir (deceased) was having two sons, namely, Ved Pal and Sangeet (accused). Marriage of Ved Pal had taken place in the year 2002 and he died two days after his marriage. After the death of Ved Pal, the family of accused Ram Phal suspected that Ved Pal had died due to practice of some Black Magic (`Jadoo-Tona') by the family of Ranbir. It was thereafter that enmity between the families of two brother arose. It has also come in evidence that accused Ram Phal and his family members had started threatening the family of Amardeep (P.W.3) after the death of Ved Pal. Then accused Ram Phal, Sangeet and Smt.Nahni had hired the services of professional killers i.e accused Anil, Ashok and Narender.
Dr. Hardev Singh Chandi (P.W.7) had conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Rahul, Ranbir and Bimla. He deposed that the upper portion of the head of Rahul had been completely blown off. Underlying muscles showed blackening. It shows that Rahul had been shot at from a very close range. The cause of death of Rahul, in the opinion of the Doctor, was injury to vital organ brain caused by fire arm injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Fire arm injury was ante mortem in nature. Dr. Hardev Singh Chandi (P.W.7) further deposed that a sharp wound 16 cms x 4 cms was present on the right side of face and neck of -20- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Ranbir (deceased) fracturing his right mandible, right maxilla and cutting cervical vertebrae. It was opined by the Doctor that the cause of death of Ranbir was shock and haemorrhage and injury to spinal cord, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The said Doctor had found eight injuries on the dead body of of Smt. Bimla. It was opined that the cause of death of Smt. Bimla was injury to vital organ brain and spinal cord by the fire arm injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The fire arm injury was ante mortem in nature. Dr. P.K. Paliwal (P.W.2) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Seema. He stated that she had been shot at her head. The bullet had pierced the underlying skull and travelled into the brain matter. A bullet was found lodged in middle cranial fossa. It was opined that the cause of death of Seema was the fire arm injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Doctor further opined that the burns present over the dead body of Seema were post mortem in nature. As mentioned above, Seema was set ablaze by accused Sangeet after he had fired a shot at her from his pistol. As deposed by Amardeep (P.W.3) Seema died some time after she had been set ablaze by accused Sangeet.
During the course of arguments, much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants on the point that -21- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
as per report (Exhibit P.A/1) of the Forensic Science Laboratory "no opinion could be formed on country made fired cartridge case marked as C/2 in respect of weapons marked as W/1 to W/3 of (FSL No.04/F-3468) as its percussion cap was found missing and no other individual characteristic marks could be observed on C/2". This fact as mentioned in report (Exhibit P.A/1) of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not, in any way, help the accused. As noticed earlier, accused Narender, Anil and Ashok were the professional killers. Besides the weapons of offence recovered in this case from the accused, it cannot be said as to how many more weapons these professionals criminals i.e accused Anil, Ashok and Narender were possessing at the time of commission of the instant crime. Under the circumstances, non-matching of one bullet recovered from the spot with the country made pistols recovered from the accused does not at all, by any stretch of reasoning, weakens the case of the prosecution against the accused, which stands proved by the overwhelming impeccable evidence led by the prosecution.
Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Amardeep (P.W.3), though was present at the spot at the time of the occurrence, but he had not seen the occurrence as he had received injuries on his head. There is no merit in this argument of the learned counsel for the -22- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
appellants as well. As has been noticed above, complainant Randhir Singh, in his statement (Exhibit P.13) leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused and in his deposition in Court as P.W.5, has stated that when he went to the house of Amardeep (P.W.3) after the crime, he had seen Amardeep present in his house with injuries on his person. Besides, Dr. S.P. Chugh (P.W.1), in his deposition in Court, stated in unequivocal terms that on 27.7.2004 at 3 A.M, when he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer in Accident and Emergency Department of P.G.I.M.S Rohtak, Amardeep alias Amarjeet (P.W.3) resident of Village Lakhan Majra, had been brought to P.G.I.M.S, Rohtak, by Dhup Singh, grand-father and Rajbir Singh uncle of injured. There was an alleged history of assault in Village Lakhan Majra. He deposed that patient was conscious. He proved the medico-legal report (Exhibit P.W.1/A) on record. Thus, at about 3 A.M on 27.7.2004, Amardeep (P.W.3) was conscious. The occurrence had taken place at about 1 A.M on the intervening night of 26.7.2004 and 27.7.2004. A question with regard to the consciousness of injured Amardeep was put to Dr. S.P. Chugh (P.W.1) in his cross-examination also, to which he replied " patient was conscious at the time of admission. The alleged history of assault was given by the patient himself". Dr.S.P. Chugh (P.W.1) had observed four injuries on the person of Amardeep (P.W.3) i.e an incised wound -23- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
over left frontal region of the head, a punctured wound medial to injury No.1, a punctured wound medial to injury No.2 and a contusion over frontal region. This statement of Dr.S.P. Chugh (P.W.1) negatives the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that Amardeep (P.W.3) had lost his consciousness and had not seen the occurrence. Dr. Ashok Yadav (P.W.6) had radiologically examined Amardeep (P.W.3) on 27.7.2004 and had found that there was fracture of left fronto parietal bone. In his cross-examination Dr. Ashok Yadav (P.W.6) stated that the fracture of parietal bone as on account of injuries Nos. 1 to 3, which have been mentioned above. Dr. Ashok Yadav (P.W.6) had also conducted Conventional Tomography (C.T) Scan of the head of Amardeep. On examination, it was found that there was depressed fracture of frontal bone with bony fragments lying in the frontal lobe. The report of Dr.Ashok Yadav (P.W.6) in this regard is Exhibit P.10 on record. It was after seeing the C.T. Scan Report Exhibit P.10 that Dr.S.P. Chugh (P.W.1) had opined that possibility of injuries on the person of Amardeep being dangerous to life could not be ruled out if no timely medical aid was provided to him (Amardeep). No question was put to Dr. Ashok Yadav (P.W.6) as to whether Amardeep (P.W.3) could have lost his consciousness instantaneously after he had received the said injuries. In the presence of this medical evidence furnished by Dr.S.P. Chugh (P.W.1) and Dr. -24- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Ashok Yadav (P.W.6), the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that Amardeep (P.W.3) had witnessed the entire occurrence. It is also worth-mentioning here that on 29.7.2004 Dr. Deepak Gupta (P.W.30) of P.G.I.M.S, Rohtak, had given opinion (Exhibit P.11/A) on police request (Exhibit P.11) that Amardeep (P.W.3) was unfit for making statement being disoriented at that moment. Thus, even Dr.Deepak Gupta did not state that injured Amardeep was unconscious. On the contrary, he stated that he was "unfit for making statement being disoriented at that moment." A person who had lost four members of his family i.e his parents, wife and minor son in front of his eyes cannot be expected to be in a stable state of mind and naturally was disoriented, as opined by Dr. Deepak Gupta (P.W.30). It was for this reason that the statement of Amardeep (P.W.3) was recorded by the police on 31.7.2004. To conclude on this point, there is nothing on record to suggest that Amardeep (P.W.3) was not in his senses at the time of occurrence.
In view of the above discussion, we have no option but to uphold the conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences.
For awarding the capital punishment of death to accused Sangeet and Narender, the learned trial Judge observed that the brutal manner in which Seema and Rahul -25- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
had been killed by Sangeet and Narender, their case falls under the category of rarest of rare cases where death sentence is warranted.
It is a case where the accused adopted a pre- meditated cold-blooded approach and committed the murders of Seema, Ranbir, Smt. Bimla and Rahul in a cruel and diabolic manner while the victims were sleeping. There was no provocation to the accused from the victims' side. The accused in this case did not show any basic humaneness and, instead, depicted their mindset not amenable to any reformation. Upper portion of the head of minor Rahul, aged about three years, was blown off by accused Narender as he fired a shot from his pistol at Rahul from a point blank range. Accused Sangeet, after firing a shot at Smt.Seema on her head, he (Sangeet) sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze. As noticed above,
the portion below the waist of Smt. Seema was desolately burnt, obviously to wrap-up the evidence with regard to sexual harassment and rape. The accused in this case were armed with deadly weapons like firearms, `Khukhri' etc., which they had unhesitatingly and indiscriminately used to commit four murders and cause dangerous to life injuries to Amardeep (P.W.3) and there was no reason for accused Sangeet to set ablaze Seema (deceased) and completely char her body below her waist. This act of accused accused Sangeet and -26- Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
accused Narender is barbaric, revolting and dastardly. It has been rightly held by the learned trial Judge that the act of accused Narender and Sangeet falls under the category of rarest or rare cases where death sentence is warranted. In view of the facts mentioned above, there would be failure of justice in case death sentence awarded to accused Narender and accused Sangeet by the trial Court is not confirmed as the same is, undoubtedly, falls within the category of the rarest of rare cases. Besides, not confirming the death sentence of accused Narender and Sangeet will send a wrong signal to the society. To serve as a deterrent to criminals like accused Narender and Sangeet in the society, to confirm their death sentence is imperative.
Smt. Bimla was murdered by accused Ashok by firing a shot at her. Ranbir was done to death by accused Ram Phal by giving `Khukhri' blows to him and by accused Anil by firing from his country made pistol. Complainant Amardeep was also inflicted injuries dangerous to life on his head by accused Ram Phal with `Khukhri'. Accused Smt.Nahni also actively participated in the commission of the crime by exhorting her co-accused. She was armed with a sickle at the time of occurrence. The sentence imposed upon accused Ram Phal, Smt.Nahni, Ashok and Anil commensurates with the offence committed by them.
-27-
Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.89DB of 2010.
Resultantly, Murder Reference No. 7 of 2009 (State of Haryana Vs. Sangeet and another) is accepted and death sentence awarded to accused Sangeet and accused Narender by the learned trial Judge is confirmed by upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order qua these accused. Criminal Appeal No.6-DB of 2010 ( Sangeet and others Vs. State of Haryana), Criminal Appeal No.55-DB of 2010 ( Ashok Vs. State of Haryana) and Criminal Appeal No.89-DB of 2010 ( Anil Vs. State of Haryana) are dismissed by upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the learned trial Judge qua accused Ram Phal, Smt. Nahni, Ashok and Anil.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( MOHINDER PAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
July 21,2010.
ak