Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 10 October, 2013
Author: Anita Chaudhry
Bench: Anita Chaudhry
Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and
Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : October 10, 2013
Ramesh Chand and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009
Kuldeep Singh and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009.
Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the State-respondent.
***
1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. Accused Ramesh Chand, Rajinder Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 2 Gajender, Kamal Singh and Rohtash have challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is reflected in the statement Ex. PA submitted by PW1 Paltu Ram which reads as follows :-
On 24.5.2006 at about 9.15 A.M. when Karambir (deceased), PW6 Dharambir, PW3 Kamlesh and Savita Devi were repairing their tractor trolly in their plot, accused Rajinder, Ramesh Chand, Rohtash, Kamal Singh, Gajraj (Gajender), Kuldeep, Manoj, Nirmala, Shanti, Muniya, Krishana and Usha who had a dispute with PW1 earlier came over there. In the said dispute which took place earlier, PW1 lost one of his teeth and as a result of which a complaint also was also lodged by him. All the accused armed with lathi, jaily, farsi and Kulhari attacked them. Accused Rajinder gave a farsi blow on the head of deceased Karambir and Ramesh gave a farsi blow to deceased Karambir. Ramesh also gave a farsi blow to PW6 Dharambir; accused Rohtash gave a Kulhari blow towards blunt side on the hand of Karambir; Kamal gave a jaily blow on the head of PW1; Gajraj (Gajender) and Kuldeep gave lathi blows on the hand of PW1 and Kuldeep gave a Kulhari blow on the back side of the ear of PW1. The complainant raised alarm. Nand Lal, Rajbir and Shree Chand came to the spot and rescued the complainant party. The injured were taken to Government Hospital, Rewari for treatment. Deceased Karambir and injured Dharambir were referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Karambir was declared as dead in the said hospital.
3. Singh Parvinder PW 8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Ranga medico legally examined 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 3 PW6 Dharambir on 24.5.2006 at General Hospital, Rewari. He found lacerated wound measuring 5 x 1 c.m. at vertex obliquely placed. In his opinion the injury would have been caused by a blunt weapon. He also medico legally examined Karambir (deceased) and found the following injuries :-
1. A lacerated wound measuring 7 x 1 c.m x bone deep with fracture of frontal parietal bone palpated through the wound.
2. Lacerated wound measuring 4 x 0.5 c.m x bone deep on the frontal region of the skull.
3. Pink abrasion measuring 4 x 4 cm. on left arm.
All the injuries would have been caused by a blunt weapon, he had opined.
4. PW8 also medico legally examined PW3 Kamlesh and found the following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound measuring 1 x 5 c.m. in between index and middle finger of left hand.
2. Pink contusion over the left shoulder, left hip and also thigh.
All those injuries in his opinion would have been caused by blunt weapon, he had opined.
5. PW13 Dr. Prem Kumar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Karambir on 25.5.2006 at 12.15 P.M. He found the following injuries :-
1. Abrasion on lower part right side back of chest 3 x 2 cm.
2. Contusion 8 x 6 cm. on mid back of left arm 7 c.m.
from top of left shoulder and 18 cm above the elbow. Singh Parvinder 3. Contusion 2 x 1 cm on back of left shoulder. 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 4
4. Incised wound 10 x 1 cm brain deep, margins clear cut, cut hair of scalp seen, situated on left fronto parietal region of scalp. Anterior ends is 9 cm. from left eye brow. Posterior end is 12 cm. from the upper border of left ear.
5. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm. margins clear cut over mid frontal area of the scalp, anterior end is 8 cm. from left eye brow 4 cm. inner towards mid line from injury no. 4. Posterior end is 17 cm. from upper border of left ear.
He opined that the head injury would have been caused by sharp edged heavy weapon. Karambir had died to the head injury which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. PW1 Paltu Ram, PW3 Kamlesh and PW6 Dharambir Singh had spoken to the occurrence in which they received injuries at the hands of the accused. They had completely supported the case of the prosecution.
7. Accused Kuldeep Singh, Kamal Singh, Rohtash, and Gajender had set up a plea in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were innocent but a false case was foisted on them. Accused Ramesh Chand had alleged that he was innocent but a false case was laid on him. A civil litigation at the instance of accused Kamal was pending disposal. He also got an order of stay from the court. He also sustained injury and was also medico legally examined. He suffered from jaundice and was undergoing treatment at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Accused Rajinder Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that he was falsely implicated. He was Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 5 working in Public Health Department, Haryana and was posted at Punsika water supply scheme. He infact performed his official duty at Punsika at the time of occurrence. He had not played any role in the occurrence. The First Information Report was lodged after due deliberation and consultation.
8. On the side of the defence DW1 constable Satyavir Singh was examined. He had deposed that a DDR was lodged at the instance of accused Ramesh Chand at 10.40 P.M. Itself on 24.5.2006. DW2 Ramji Lal who brought the attendance register of Rohtash had spoken to the fact that Rohtash was on official duty at Water pump operation, Punsika between 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. On 24.5.2006. DW5 Dr. Dharmender Kumar who examined accused Ramesh Chand on 24.5.2006 found a raddish abrasion and a lacerated wound on the left forearm. Ramesh Chand also complained of pain over the right forearm and chest. DW6 Jasbir Singh, Junior Engineer also supported the version of DW2. DW10 Dr. R.S. Taneja spoke to the fact that accused Ramesh Chand took treatment in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for jaundice. DW11 constable Veeer Singh spoke to the fact that he visited Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi but he could secure the post mortem certificate only after a prolonged delay.
9. The trial court having relied upon the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW6 in the background of the medical evidence available on record returned a verdict of conviction as against the accused.
10. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Singh submitted that there had been an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The grievous Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 6 injuries on the deceased had been purposely attributed to accused Ramesh Chand and accused Rajinder Singh who were in government service. Three independent witnesses named in the First Information Report were not examined by the prosecution. PW3 Kamlesh had admitted that she suffered a statement before the police at 11.00 A.M. on 24.5.2006 but PW22 Mohd. Jamal had come out with a different version, as though Kamlesh refused to give statement at the General Hospital, Rewari. It is his further submission that inspite of the presence of Delhi Police at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, PW1 Paltu Ram had not chosen to give any statement regarding the occurrence which allegedly took place at 9.15 A.M. on 24.5.2006. PW1 had given a complaint only at 9.30 P.M. on the said day. Such a whopping delay of 12 hours had not been properly explained by the prosecution. The medico legal reports would go to establish that the deceased had suffered injuries with blunt weapons. But the post mortem report had been manipulated to suit the convenience of the prosecution.
11. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants Kuldeep Singh, Gajender, Kamal Singh and Rohtash would submit that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of DW2, DW6 and DW9 let in on the side of the defence to establish the alibi set up by Rohtash. Further, Rohtash who allegedly possessed Kulhari could not have caused any abrasion on the person of the deceased. He would also submit that the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution let in to show that the other accused Kuldeep, Gajender and Kamal singh also caused injuries to PW1 was very week. He would also further submit that the court might take into consideration the fact that Kuldeep Singh, Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 7 Gajender and Kamal Singh had not caused any injury to the deceased.
12. We heard the submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana supporting the conviction recorded by the trial court.
13. Accused Ramesh Chand and accused Rajinder Singh were armed with farsi. The eye witnesses PW1 Paltu Ram, PW3 Kamlesh and PW6 Dharambir had spoken in one voice that those two accused armed with farsi attacked deceased Karambir on his head with the weapons they held.
14. PW1, PW3 and PW6 are found to be injured witnesses. Their testimony cannot be simply discarded for the reason that there had been some immaterial contradictions. It is true that Nand Lal, Rajbir and Shree Chand had allegedly witnessed the occurrence. They had also been cited as witnesses in the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The fact remains that they had not been examined by the prosecution. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that matters. When the prosecution could establish the case beyond reasonable doubt through the injured eyewitnesses, the examination of the other eyewitnesses to the occurrence becomes totally redundant.
15. The eyewitnesses had categorically deposed that the main accused Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Singh were armed with farsi and attacked on the head of the deceased. But the medico legal report prepared by PW8 Dr. Ashok Kumar Ranga of Civil Hospital, Rewari would disclose that the deceased had received injuries with blunt weapon. But PW13 Dr. Prem Kumar who conducted post mortem Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 8 examination had spoken to the incised injuries found on the head of the deceased. He had also given the reason why he came to such a conclusion that the injuries found on the head of the deceased would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The hair portion had been found cut. Even otherwise in the head where the skull is supported by the skin, incised wound might have been deceptive and it would have looked like a lacerated wound. At any rate when the ocular testimony lends support to the post mortem report, we do not propose to doubt the case of the prosecution that accused Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Singh who were armed with farsi caused lethal injuries on the head of the deceased which ultimately ended in the death of Karambir.
16. One of the family members of the complainant party had sustained lethal injuries and PW6 Dharambir also was taken along with the deceased to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi for treatment. Delhi is located about 80 Kms. away from Rewari. The entire family would have been in grief on account of the unfortunate occurrence. No wonder there had been a delay of 12 hours in lodging the complaint by PW1 to the police.
17. Of course, PW3 Kamlesh would depose that on 24.5.2006 at about 11.00 A.M. the police approached him and obtained her statement but PW22 Mohd. Jamal who infact proceeded to record her statement would depose that Kamlesh refused to give statement. Of course, PW3 Kamlesh had created some confusion in the case of the prosecution as regards the alleged statement suffered by her. If at all she had suffered a statement, there was no reason for the investigating agency to suppress the same. When there were three injured Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 9 eyewitnesses in this case, there would have been no occasion for the complainant party for any deliberation or consultation for introducing embellishment in F.I.R.
18. PW1 Paltu Ram also would depose that Delhi police was there at the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. He had been attending to the injured and the deceased. Therefore, there had been some delay on his part to lodge the complaint. Further, the case had originated from Rewari district. Therefore, PW1 would not have thought of lodging a complaint with Delhi police.
19. The prosecution had also established through the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW6 that there had been previous enmity between the accused party and the complainant party. In fact, accused Kamal Singh had filed a civil suit as against the complainant party and obtained an order of status quo. Further, PW1 Paltu Ram had also lost one of his teeth in the earlier occurrence.
20. In view of the above, we find that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that due to the previous enmity, accused Ramesh Chand and Rajinder who were armed with farsi, in furtherance of their common intention, caused lethal injuries on the head of the deceased and caused his death and thereby committed murder.
21. Coming to the role of Rohtash, we find that he had set up a plea of alibi. DW2 and DW6 had spoken to the fact that infact Rohtash was on duty at Water Supply, Punsika on 24.5.2006 from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. His evidence cannot be simply discarded by the court. Further, the eyewitnesses had stated that he was armed with Kulhari, a Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 10 heavy sharp edged weapon. But as per the MLR Ex. PS it is found that only an abrasion was found on the hand of the deceased. In other words, the medical evidence did not support the ocular testimony as regards the alleged injury caused by Rohtash to the deceased. The medical evidence also would go to show that such an abrasion could have been caused when the deceased fell down. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the attack allegedly launched by Rohtash with kulhari on the deceased. Therefore, accused Rohtash is entitled to acquittal.
22. Accused Kuldeep Singh, Gajender and Kamal Singh had caused injury to PW1 with lathis and jaily. PW1 had sustained only simple injury at the hands of accused Kuldeep Singh, Gajender and Kamal Singh, as per the medical evidence. In our view, had those accused also intended to cause the death of Karambir, they would have come to the scene of occurrence with lethal weapons and attacked the complainant party with all vehemence at their command. The prosecution infact failed to establish that those accused attacked PW1 in furtherance of their common object. Therefore, in our view, only a charge under Section 323 as against accused Kuldeep Singh, Gajender and Kamal Singh is made out. These accused had not caused any injury to PW3 Kamlesh. Therefore, no charge under Section 325 was made out against these accused.
23. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is modified and the accused Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Singh are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 11 pay a fine of `1000/- each and in default to undergo a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Kuldeep Singh, Gajender and Kamal Singh are convicted under Section 323 IPC. They had already undergone more than two years rigorous imprisonment. They are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment which they had already undergone. Accused Rohtash is acquitted of all the charges framed as against him. The bail bonds executed by Kuldeep Singh, Gajender, Kamal Singh and Rohtash shall stand discharged.
24. With the above modification in the matter of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the Criminal Appeal No. D-699-DB of 2009 stands dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. D-704-DB of 2009 is allowed in part.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE October 10, 2013 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2013.10.24 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document