Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan vs State Of Haryana on 10 September, 2014
CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M)
Date of Decision :10.09.2014
Krishan .....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
****
Present : Mr. R.N.Lohan , Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Verma, AAG, Haryana.
****
i. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
ii. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
iii.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of learned trial Court dated 12.09.2003 and 15.09.2003 respectively whereby he was convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years together with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. SUNITA NAGPAL 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 2
Briefly stated the prosecution story as stipulated in the FIR is that on 7.12.2001 a written information was received in the police station GRP Sonepat from Civil Hospital, Ganaur that dead body of a lady had been brought .On receiving the information Head Constable Sahab Singh reached the hospital and conducted inquest proceedings. However, the dead body was not identified and in an effort to get it identified, the same was taken to railway station and was put on a platform. Next day i.e.8.12.2001 one Ram Chand identified the dead body to be that of his niece Sunita i.e. wife of the appellant. He stated that Sunita was adopted by him and was married to the present appellant in the year 1988. Three daughters were born out of this wedlock. The appellant started maltreating Sunita and on 6.12.2001 he along with his three children and wife Sunita came to the house of the complainant at Sonepat. Next day the complainant and his wife went to market for purchasing some household articles leaving the appellant and his family at home. When they came back, the appellant and deceased were not there and it was told by their grand daughter that their father had taken their mother i.e. deceased Sunita, after rebuking and threatening her. On 8.12.2001 one Rameshwar told the complainant that his niece Sunita was being beaten by her husband Krishan just ahead of village Rajlu Garhi and that in the meantime a train was arriving and Krishan pushed Sunita under the running train as a result of which she struck against it and fell down. On SUNITA NAGPAL 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 3 this a case was registered against the appellant-accused who was also arrested. Postmortem was got conducted and on completion of usual formalities of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
Accused was charged for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated that his wife has committed suicide.
The trial Court after appreciation of evidence and other material on record,convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as depicted above. Hence the present appeal.
The first argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no charge framed against the appellant under Section 306 IPCand consequently once the trial Court found him not guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC there was no occasion to convict him under Section 306 IPC. He has relied upon Sangaraboina Sreenu vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported as AIR 1997 SC 3233. Learned AAG has relied upon Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P. reported as AIR 2004 SC 1990. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had constituted a larger bench to consider the SUNITA NAGPAL 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 4 difference of opinion given in the case of Lakhjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab reported as 1994 Supp(1) SCC 173 and in the case of Sangaraboina Sreenu vs State of Andhra Pradesh(supra) and after going through the entire material on record had come to the conclusion that the decision in Sangaraboina Sreenu's case(supra) was wrong in law. Their lordships held as follows:-
"17. There are a catena of decisions of this Court on the same lines and it is not necessary to burden this judgment by making reference to each one of them. Therefore, in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion. In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Sangarabonia Sreenu(supra) was not correctly decided as it purports to lay down as a principle of law that where the accused is charged under Section 302 IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC." The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that SUNITA NAGPAL 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 5 even the offence under Section 306 IPC was not proven. As per him there were discrepancies in the story of the prosecution. The lynchpin of the prosecution case is Varsha (PW12), the 12 year old daughter of the appellant. In her testimony she has unequivocally stated that prior to the date of incident her father used to beat her mother every day and on that day he took her from the home on the pretext of taking her to a temple and never returned. A day after the dead body of the deceased was found. Though she was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited from her which would detract from this statement. In the circumstances the argument that Rameshwar (PW13) did not support the prosecution version would not mitilate the case brought against the appellant. He(PW13) may have been a false witness put forth by the police to pad the story, which cannot in any way detract from the statement made by Varsha(PW12).
It is further pointed out that complainant Ram Chander had stated that he had identified the dead body of the deceased on 08.12.2001 and in his presence the accused had confessed to the murder but the police have shown the arrest of the appellant as on 10.09.2014. In my opinion this would also not detract from the statement made by Varsha(PW12).
In the circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court and uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC.
SUNITA NAGPAL Let he be now apprehended to serve out the 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-1863-SB of 2003(O&M) 6 remaining period of sentence.
Appeal is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE September 10, 2014 sunita SUNITA NAGPAL 2014.09.18 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document