Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bugga Ram Son Of Ballu Ram vs The State Of Haryana on 22 May, 2009
Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997
Date of Decision : 22.05.2009
Bugga Ram son of Ballu Ram, r/o Village Surakhpur, P.S.
Jatusana.
...Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Lamba, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, for the respondent - State.
****
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 06.05.97, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which, it convicted the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 2 a period of three years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 7500/-, and in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of six months. However, it acquitted, Lal Singh, Ramesh Kumar, and Mukesh Kumar, accused. It was further ordered that out of the recovered fine of Rs. 7500/-, a sum of Rs. 5000/-, would be given as compensation to Bhagmal, injured, and the remaining amount of Rs. 2500/-, would go to the State Exchequer.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, on the night intervening 06/07.10.95, a VT message was received at Police Post, Kosli, about the admission of Bhagmal, injured, in Government Hospital, Rewari. On 07.10.95, Head Constable Satyabir Singh, reached the General Hospital, Rewari, for recording the statement of the injured, but the Medical Officer, on duty, informed him, that Bhagmal, injured, had been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, on the very same evening. On 08.10.95, Head Constable Parkash Chand, reached the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, for recording the statement of the injured. He met Ranjeet Singh son of Gopi Ram, in the hospital, and recorded his statement, on the basis whereof, formal first information report, was lodged.
3. Ranjeet Singh, informed the Police, that Bhagmal, injured, was his younger brother. He (Bhagmal) had told him about the alleged high-handedness of Ramesh, Mukesh, Bugga, and Lala, who had broken two pieces of pipe belonging to him and had mischievously carried away a bend used for connecting two pieces of pipes, at about Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 3 4.30 PM, on 06.10.95. Ranjeet Singh advised him to maintain his cool and offered to settle the matter amicably. Bhagmal, then returned to his fields. The complainant also followed him. As soon as, they reached in the vicinity of the fields of Mawasi Ram, at about 5.00 PM, he (Mawasi Ram) and Bhom Singh, told them, that Ramesh, Mukesh, Bugga, and Lala, were approaching them from their fields. When they came near Bhagmal, he asked them to return the bend to him, but they (accused) did not pay any heed to his request, and opened attack on him. Bugga, then dealt a lathi blow on the head of Bhagmal, as a result whereof, he fell down on the ground. Ramesh, Mukesh, and Lala, also gave lathi blows to him. Bhagmal, was rescued by Ranjeet Singh, complainant, Bhom Singh, and Mawasi Ram. Bhagmal, injured, had become unconscious by then, and was found bleeding from his mouth and nose.
4. A tractor belonging to Siri Bhagwan was pressed into service and Bhagmal, injured, was immediately removed to Government Hospital, Rewari, by the complainant and one Abhay Singh. The Medical Officer, on duty, at Rewari, found the condition of Bhagmal, quite precarious and immediately referred him to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak.
5. The Police initiated the investigation, in the matter, and arrested the accused. Opinion of the Medical Officer, was sought about the gravity of the head injury, suffered by Bhagmal. It was reported that the injury was indeed dangerous to life. After the completion of Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 4 investigation, the accused were challaned.
6. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.
7. The prosecution, in support of its case examined Ranjeet Singh, eye-witness-cum-complainant (PW1), who deposed in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above, Bhagmal, injured (PW2), who also deposed in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above, Mawasi Ram (PW3), another eye-witness, who did not support the case of the prosecution, Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta (PW4), who conducted the medico-legal examination of Bhagmal, Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal (PW5), who found hemorrhage contusion right temporal and right parietal region of Bhagmal in the CT Scan, Head Constable Parkash Chand (PW6), who recorded the statement of Ranjit Singh, exhibit PA, Assistant Sub Inspector Sunder Lal (PW7), who recorded the formal first information report PA/1 and Sub Inspector Jai Narain (PW8), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
8. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 5 incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Accused Bugga Ram, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, he was falsely involved in this case. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the incident.
9. Mukesh, accused, took up the same plea, as was taken up by Bugga Ram, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. Lal Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he was innocent. On the day of incident Ramesh, accused, was on his way to fields when Ranjit, prosecution witness, intercepted him, and gave a lathi blow on his left thigh. He further stated that, in the meanwhile, Bhagmal and Ajay, also joined Ranjit, and caused injuries, on the lower limbs and the shoulder of Ramesh. He further stated that Ram Kishan son of Siri Ram and Rajesh son of Hardwari, of that village, had witnessed the occurrence.
11. Ramesh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, in fact, the incident had taken place with him only and the other accused had nothing to do with the occurrence. He further stated that, on that evening, he was on his way to his fields when Ranjit, intercepted him, and dealt a lathi blow on his left thigh. He further stated that Bhagmal, and Ajay, also joined him with their lathis and gave several blows on his legs and shoulder. He further stated that he had also reported the matter to the Police and Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 6 DDR No. 8, dated 07.10.95, was recorded. He was medico-legally examined. He further stated that he acted in self-defence. The accused examined Dr. Sher Singh (DW1), and Assistant Sub Inspector Azim Khan (DW2), in their defence. Thereafter, they closed, their defence evidence.
12. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Bugga Ram, accused, as stated above, whereas it acquitted Lal Singh, Ramesh Kumar, and Mukesh Kumar, accused.
13. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
14. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.
15. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that there was a delay of two days, in lodging the first information report, which remained explained. He further submitted that this delay resulted into concoction of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. The occurrence, took place, on 06.10.95, at 5.00 PM. Bhagmal had received a very serious injury on his head. He was rushed to General Hospital, Rewari. Since his condition was highly precarious the Medical Officer referred him to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. On the same very evening, a VT message was received, in the Police Station on the night of 06.10.95 itself. Satyabir, Head Constable, approached the Medical Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 7 Officer in Government Hospital, Rewari, on 07.10.95, at 6.15 PM, but he was informed that the patient had been referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, on 06.10.95, at 10.30 PM. Thereafter, Head Constable Parkash Chand, PW6, went to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, on 08.10.95, and recorded the statement of Ranjit Singh exhibit PA. He also moved an application PG before the Medical Officer, seeking his opinion, as to whether, Bhagmal, was fit to make statement who opined that he was not fit to make statement. The first and foremost concern of the kith and kin of the injured, was to provide him the best medical aid, so as to save his life. It was only after the kith and kin were sure that the life of the injured, was out of danger, that they could think of lodging the report. Ranjit Singh, brother of Bhagmal, injured, was busy, in making arrangement for the medical treatment of Bhagmal, injured. Intimation to the Police Station was sent immediately. In the meanwhile, Bhagmal was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. As soon as, the Police reached the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, the statement of Ranjit Singh, was recorded, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered. The delay, if any, therefore, stood fully explained. If there was any negligence, on the part of the Police, in recording the statement of Ranjit Singh, with promptitude, then the complainant, could not be blamed. Even otherwise, delay per-se is not sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution story. In the face of unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, the Court is put on guard, to Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 8 scrutinize the prosecution evidence carefully and cautiously. If after careful and cautious scrutiny, the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses carries a ring of truth, then delay in lodging the first information report, pales into insignificance. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated by the medical evidence is cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. In the first instance, the delay has been explained. Even if, it is assumed, that there was some unexplained delay, that is of no consequence as the evidence of the prosecution is trustworthy. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
16. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that Mawasi Ram, PW3, an eye witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the mere fact that Mawasi Ram, failed to support the case of the prosecution, in itself, was sufficient to throw away the case of the prosecution over-board. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The fate of the prosecution case does not hinge on the statement of a single witness. No doubt, Mawasi Ram, PW3, an eyewitness resiled from his previous statement. In such circumstances, the Court is required to take into consideration, the evidence of the other witnesses and if it comes to the conclusion, that the same was reliable, then the mere fact that one witness resiled from his statement, does not cast any doubt on the prosecution story. In the instant case, Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 9 the evidence of Ranjit Singh, PW1, and Bhagmal, injured, PW2, duly corroborated by Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta, PW4, who found diffused swelling without any colour changes present on the top of the skull more on left parietal area, which injury was declared as dangerous to life, and the evidence of Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal, PW5, was rightly held to be sufficient by the trial Court, to convict the accused. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 731 (S.C.), two eye witnesses resiled from their previous statements. The Apex Court held that the evidence of the witnesses has to be weighed and not counted. The Apex Court, held that the evidence of the sole eye- witness, was sufficient to convict the accused, notwithstanding the fact, that two other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. In P.P. Fatima Vs. State of Kerala (2004(1) RCR (Crl.) 81, S.C., the panch witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. It was held that such omission, by itself, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Udai Lal 2008(2) RCR (Crl.) (S.C.) 956, four independent witnesses were joined and examined. They resiled from their statements. However, the Police officials, supported the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that conviction on the evidence of the official witnesses, notwithstanding the fact, that the independent witnesses resiled could be recorded, as the evidence is required to be weighed and not counted. Ultimately, the Apex Court, set aside the judgement of acquittal, rendered by the High Court, and restored the judgement of Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 10 conviction recorded by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
17. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the doctor gave the opinion after 25 days of the occurrence that the nature of the injury was dangerous to life. The x-ray examination of the injury, must have taken sometime. Not only this, even there was CT Scan of the injury on the head of Bhagmal. On receipt of the x-ray report, Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta, PW4, gave the opinion PC that the injury was dangerous to life. Even Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal, PW5, stated that CT Scan of the brain of Bhagmal, injured was done which showed hemorrhagic contusion temporal and left parietal region. There was fracture on right parietal bone and on the skull of Bhagmal. It was, under these circumstances, that there was delay in giving the report regarding the nature of injuries. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that in the same occurrence, Ramesh Kumar, one of the accused who has since been acquitted also sustained injuries, but the same were not explained by the prosecution. He further submitted that, thus, it could be said that the prosecution suppressed the very genesis of the occurrence. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt was required to be given to the accused, but the trial Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 11 Court, was wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. Dr. Sher Singh, DW1, who medico- legally examined Ramesh Kumar, found three injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. During the course of his cross- examination it was stated by him that all the injuries were superficial in nature. He further stated that the possibility of the superficial injuries being self-suffered, could not be ruled out. The prosecution was not required to explain the simple injuries on the person of one of the accused. Such like injuries as stated by Dr. Sher Singh, DW1, could be self-suffered. Non-explanation of the injuries, on the person of Ramesh Kumar, therefore, did not at all cast any doubt, on the prosecution story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
19. Last of all, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings, since 08.10.95, when the first information report was registered. He further submitted that already a period of more than 13 years has lapsed. He further submitted that lenient view be taken by reducing the sentence of the appellant, to the period already undergone. He further submitted that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant only runs into a few months. In my opinion, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The appellant was on bail during the trial, as also he was granted bail after the appeal was filed by him. There was fracture of skull bone of the Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 12 injured, on account of the injury caused by the appellant. The offence committed by the appellant, therefore, was very heinous in nature. In these circumstances, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for showing leniency, in the matter of sentence, to the appellant, by reducing the same. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence, would do more harm to the justice system, to undermine the public confidence, in the efficacy of law, and the society could no longer endure, under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court, to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of offence, and the manner, in which, it was executed or committed. In case, in such like heinous offences, inadequate sentence is awarded or the sentence awarded by the trial Court, is reduced, that would amount to the mockery of justice system. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out, to reduce the sentence, awarded to the accused, by the trial Court. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
20. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
21. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgement of conviction and the order of the sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point. The same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and deserve to be upheld.
22. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. If the appellant is on Criminal Appeal No. 398-SB of 1997 13 bail, his bail bonds, shall stand cancelled.
23. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within 02 months.
24. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court.
25. The Registry is directed to keep track that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action.
22.05.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE